Judgment:
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J]
1. The president, Malayagoundanpatti Panchayat, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District, has filed this writ appeal as against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.(MD)No.13185 of 2010, dated 09.04.2011, wherein the 3rd respondent herein was the writ petitioner. The said writ petition was filed challenging the order passed by the present appellant, who was the 3rd respondent in the writ petition, dismissing the 3rd respondent/writ petitioner from service, without holding any enquiry.
2.It is seen from the facts narrated, the 3rd respondent/writ petitioner was employed as a Sweeper in Malayagoundanpatti Panchayat. He was dismissed from service by order, dated 21.09.2010. The grievance of the 3rd respondent/writ petitioner was that although he was kept under suspension, without holding any enquiry, he was dismissed from service. It is not disputed by the parties herein that an explanation was offered by the 3rd respondent/writ petitioner to the original show cause notice. However, not satisfied with the explanation offered, the papers were placed before the panchayat council and the council also unanimously decided to dismiss the 3rd respondent/writ petitioner, without holding any enquiry and accordingly he was dismissed from service.
3.On the above said facts, the learned Single Judge pointed out that even in the counter affidavit filed by the writ appellant, the 3rd respondent in the writ petition, there was a statement as regards not holding of enquiry before passing the order of dismissal. In the background of the said facts, the learned Single Judge rightly set aside the order of dismissal and thereby allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal before this Court by the president of the panchayat.
4.On the admitted fact that there was no enquiry before passing the order of dismissal, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal filed by the president of the panchayat. In the circumstances, confirming the order of the learned Single Judge, we reject the writ appeal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant may be permitted to hold an enquiry. It is open to the appellant to hold an enquiry, if they desire to hold it so.
5.The writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2012 is dismissed and M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2011 is closed.