N RAMASAMY Vs. COMMISSIONER MADURAI CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) Even though the matter has been listed for orders, the learned counsel appearing for the second and third respondent has again prayed time for filing counter. I do not see any justification to grant time for filing counter at this belated stage, as the writ petition is pending since five years. The Policy of the Legislature as reflected in the amended C.P.C regarding the grant of time for filing written statement, even though not strictly applicable to a writ petition, is also required to be kept in view. Therefore, I do not find any justification to grant any further time to the State Government for filing counter.

(3.) This writ petition is directed against the order of termination. It is not disputed that the petitioner was transferred from Tirunelveli Corporation and posted as Medical Officer under the first respondent/Corporation in the year 1989. Subsequently, the first respondent commenced disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner on the allegation that he had remained unauthorisedly absent. Explanation was furnished by the petitioner stating that on account of the sudden demise of his father, the petitioner had to remain absent and therefore, due to depression the petitioner himself had to undergo treatment. It was further explained that applications had been filed from time to time for grant of leave. It was also indicated that the petitioner was willing to rejoin. However, the first respondent proceeded with the enquiry and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent and thereafter passed an order of termination.