Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

REJAN.J., NIGHT WATCH MAN versus THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


REJAN.J., NIGHT WATCH MAN v. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 25462 of 2007(F) [2007] RD-KL 16343 (22 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 25462 of 2007(F)

1. REJAN.J., NIGHT WATCH MAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,

3. THE DIRECTOR,

4. THE PRINCIPAL,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER

Dated :22/08/2007

O R D E R

A.K. BASHEER, J.

W.P.(C). NO. 25462 OF 2007

Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Grievance of the petitioner, who is admittedly a provisional employee in the University Institute of Technology at Adoor, is that his services have been unceremoniously terminated on the allegation that he had indulged in unlawful activities and received illegal gratification. According 6to the petitioner, he is entitled to continue in service till December 10, 2007, when his extended tenure is due to expire. But his primary grievance is that he was not served with any prior notice before disengaging him from service. Even though it is not clear whether petitioner had been served with prior notice, I am of the view that this writ petition need not be retained on the file of this Court.

2. Learned Standing counsel, who accepts notice for respondents 1 to 3 submits that petitioner will be furnished with the memo of charges and all particulars of the charges or allegations against him as referred to in Ext.P2 order. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: WPC NO 25462/07 Page numbers Respondent No.1 shall ensure that petitioner is served with notice indicating the allegations within 7 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the same, it will be open to the petitioner to respond and submit his explanation, in which event respondent No.1 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. The entire process shall be completed by respondent No.1, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE

vps WPC NO 25462/07 Page numbers

A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE

OP NO.20954/00

JUDGMENT

1ST MARCH, 2007


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.