Full Judgment
1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.B1/2389/2011, dated 30.08.2011 to quash the same as illegal and in violation of principle of law and further to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Village Assistant in the Kottaipatti Village Panchayat with all service benefits from the date of suspension (i.e., 28.07.2008) within a stipulated period.
2. Heard Mr.M.Jothi Basu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Alagathevan, learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents.
3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
4. The present Writ Petition is directed against the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.B1/2389/2011, dated 30.08.2011 to quash the same as illegal and in violation of principle of natural justice and with a further direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Village Assistant in Kottaipatti Village Panchayat with all service benefits from the date of suspension, namely, 28.07.2008.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Village Assistant(Part-Time) in Kottaipatti Village Panchayat, Srivilliputur Panchayat Union, Virudhunagar District, on 19.05.2001. After his appointment, the Kottaipatti Village Panchayat Council has also approved his appointment by way of Resolution No.139, dated 30.05.2011. Subsequently, thereafter, the Block Development Officer has also passed an order, dated 09.01.2007, directing the Village Panchayats to fix the time scale-of-pay to its employees. Thus, he has became permanent employee in the third respondent/Village Panchayat. Thereafter, the third respondent has issued a charge memo, dated 04.07.2008, seeking explanation about the various charges.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner also submitted his explanation on 12.07.2008. After that, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 28.07.2008, stating that his explanation was not satisfactory. Immediately, thereafter, the petitioner made an application to the second respondent/the Block Development Officer with a request to revoke the suspension order and the second respondent also on 21.09.2010 directed the third respondent/the President of Kottaipatti Village Panchayat to pass final orders. Subsequently, thereafter in the light of the direction issued by the second respondent/the Block Development Officer sent notice to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry fixed on various dates viz., 02.11.2010, 24.11.2010 and 06.12.2010. Since the petitioner was suffering from Jaundice during that period, he was unable to attend the enquiry before the third respondent. But, however, he has given his representation to fix some other date for enquiry. Ignoring the said representation, the third respondent dismissed the petitioner holding that the petitioner was over-aged at the time of his appointment.
7. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is that when there is no allegation in the charge-memo about the crossing of the requisite age-limit at the time of his appointment, the charge-memo and the order of dismissal from service cannot be legally sustained. However, he added that the respondents have not afforded reasonable and sufficient opportunity to the petitioner.
8. When these things were not properly considered, as the petitioner has aggrieved by the order passed by the third respondent, namely, the ex-parte order of dismissal, preferred an appeal before the Block Development Officer on 07.01.2011. The second respondent had also confirmed the order. But, however, the method adopted for passing an ex-parte order was held as wrong, on that basis, he prayed to set aside the dismissal order. It is an admitted case, at the time of his appointment, the petitioner as Village Assistant (Part-Time), has already crossed the age-limit of 33 years and the order passed by the appellate authority also clearly shows that on the date of his appointment, he was 34 years 11 months and 2 days, therefore, when the third respondent finding out a fact that the petitioner had crossed the requisite age-limit (33 for SC) on the date of his appointment i.e., On 30.05.2001, has rightly issued a charge-memo. Though the petitioner submitted his explanation, he has not produced any relevant records to disprove the allegation made against him that he was well within the age limit at the time of his appointment. When such a simple fact was not brought on record, he cannot rise any hue and cry now.
9. Subsequently, when several opportunities were granted to the petitioner on various dates, namely, 02.11.2010, 24.11.2010 and 06.12.2010 to attend the enquiry, the petitioner deliberately and willfully evaded from participating in the enquiry proceedings, may be, he is not having any document to move his case. As a result, the third respondent finding that the petitioner inspite of having given sufficient opportunities, failed to participate in the enquiry, proceeded ex-parte and completed the enquiry and an ex-parte order of dismissal was passed against the petitioner. The findings of the order of dismissal passed by the second respondent has also been properly confirmed by the second respondent holding specifically that the petitioner at the time of his appointment has crossed the age-limit. Such a finding of facts arrived by disciplinary authority as confirmed by the Appellate Authority cannot be substituted by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, even today, the petitioner has not filed any certificates showing his original date of birth to show that he was appointed on 19.05.2001, as Village Assistant with proper age, therefore, no purpose would be served if the matter is remanded back to authorities for fresh enquiry.
10. In view of the above, the Writ Petition fails and dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.