9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent No 1-Kenara was. entrusted with the job of constructing the low cost housing by imparting knowledge to the people in the matter of building material technology etc. The project is sponsored by the Government and U.D. Co., which is 100% state oriented. The said Kendra is controlled by the Chief Secretary of Zilla Panchayat in his ex-officio capacity and the Deputy Commissioner of District followed by six members as Executive Committee Members. 3. The petitioner it appears was working since 1994. According to him he was working efficiently without any bad remarks, much less any. complaint against him both regarding his discharge of duties as well as the integrity. Suffice it to say that the disciplinary proceedings were initiate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e subsistence allowance. This Court accepted the writ petition pursuant to the order dated 25.07.2006 issued a direction to pay the subsistence allowance. This Court also observed that the first respondent did not produce any document to show that termination has taken place during the pendency of the writ petition till then. A review petition was filed by the first respondent in Review Petition No.399/2006 in. the present writ petition. The said review petition was allowed and the order was recalled. The order was recalled inasmuch as the petitioner in the meantime was terminated. But however the direction issued by this Court to pay subsistence allowance remained intact. It is submitted at the Bar that pursuant to the direction issued by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned counsel for the petitioner submits that indeed pursuant to Annexure- L a second show cause notice was issued on 16.12.2005. Petitioner had sought for some more time to file his defence statement and the defence statement, was filed and was received by the Deputy Commissioner on 10.01.2006. Hence it is clear that impugned order Annexure- K is passed without considering the reply given to the second show cause notice. Thus it violates Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 submits that indeed a reply was given to the second show cause notice and was received in the office of the Deputy Commissioner on 10.01.2006. He submits that the reply ought to have been forwarded to the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ho has signed the second show cause notice. Indeed in the circumstances first respondent cannot be heard to say that the reply has been given to the Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga: in his individual capacity and not as a Chairman of Nirmithi Kendra. Apparently if Annexure- L the second show cause notice as well as reply at Annexure- N are looked into obviously the petitioner cannot be faulted in sending a reply to the authority from whom he had received the second show cause notice. Indeed the reply to the second show cause notice was received in the office of the first respondent on 10.01.2006 and the impugned order is passed on 25.02.2006 terminating the services of the petitioner. Obviously this would be in violation of Article 311 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
