Allowed

T.Ashok v. The District Collector (Panchayat Wing),Medak District

Telangana HC24 Sept 2010WP/23715/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging termination of a contractor Panchayat Secretary. The Court directed the Collector to conduct an inquiry framing specific charges and allowed subsistence allowance during the inquiry period.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; fresh show-cause notice with charges to be issued; inquiry to be completed within two months; order to reinstate if proceedings pending; subsistence allowance directed.

T.Ashok Vs The District Collector… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.23715 of 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner was engaged as a Panchayat Secretary on contra basis for Maddikunta Village, Sadasivpet Mandal. Alleging tha misappropriated the funds earmarked for old age pension to be distribu the village, the District Collector, Panchayat Raj Wing, the first respo herein, issued a show cause notice, dated 07.06.2010, requiring petitioner to submit his reply, as to why his contract be not terminated. petitioner submitted his explanation on 24.06.2010. The first respo passed the order, dated 26.072.010, terminating the contract o petitioner. The same is challenged in this writ petition.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Govern Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for the first respo and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶6

It is no doubt true that the appointment of the petitioner as Panc Secretary was on contractual basis and he cannot be equated to a re employee of the Gram Panchayat. All the same, the respondents under obligation to conduct enquiry before arriving at a conclusion th petitioner misappropriated the funds. Though on 07.06.2010 a show c notice was issued, no charges were framed and it was proceeded as th the petitioner has misappropriated the amount. The enquiry would be meaningful, if only a charge with reference to the details and particula framed, and the petitioner is given an opportunity to defend himse vague, general and unverifiable allegation cannot constitute the bas termination of the contract. Apart from leading to denial of livelihood t petitioner, it would cast stigma upon him.

¶7

Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order aside. The first respondent is directed to issue a fresh show cause n duly indicating the charges and its particulars and cause enquiry depe upon the explanation to be submitted by the petitioner. This exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a of this order. In case, the proceedings are not concluded, the respon shall be under obligation to reinstate the petitioner. The petitioner sha

¶8

be entitled to any subsistence allowance for the period during which, out of service.

¶9

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDD

¶11

Date:24.09.2010 Note: Issue CC in one week. (b/o) VGB

T.Ashok v. The District Collector (Panchayat Wing),Medak District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Ashok v. The District Collector (Panchayat Wing),Medak District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Pentaiah, S/o.Atchaiah, R/o.Ex.Khallasi(shore) Vs The Visakhapatnam Port Trust, rep.by its Chief Mechanical

Gorle Joginaidu, S/o. Simhachalam, Hindu, Vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc

Sri S.S. Reddy Vs The Labour Court-Iii

G. Somulu Vs The Apsrtc

V. Santhaiah Vs The Regional Manager

Smt N. Prajavathi Vs Sri D. John