IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2008 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 5773 of 2001(K) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K. GOPI @ SATHYASEELAN, PUNNAVILATHAZETHATTU PUTHENVEEDU, KOTTUKAL.P.O., BALARAMAPURAM (VIA). BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON,SC,TVM CORPN.. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 9573/2001 IN O.P. NO. 5773/2001-K DISMISSED 14/03/2008. SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 31/03/2000 IN C.C. 3/95 IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE -V, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.2. DTD. 07/09/2000. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ======================= O.P.No.5773 of 2001-K. ======================= Dated this the 14th day of March, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who was an employee of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, is challenging Ext.P2 order by which the Secretary to the Corporation ordered removal of the petitioner from service. 2. The allegation raised against him is that he had impersonated in the name of one Gopi and obtained a job as public cleaner in the Corporation. There were various enquiries namely, Vigilance enquiry etc. in the matter. Actually he was removed as per Ext.P2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that prior to the passing of Ext.P2 he was not issued with any show cause notice and he was not offered any opportunity to file explanation, and he was not personally heard in the matter. A reading of Ext.P2 would show that it is not discernible from there O.P.No.5773 of 2001-K. -: 2 :- that show cause notice was issued to him and an effective opportunity was also given to defend the action. The order visits with adverse civil consequences to the petitioner. It is axiomatic that the same can be passed only in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Since the order does not show that he was issued with any previous notice and was offered any personal hearing the same cannot be sustained. Therefore Ext.P2 is quashed. The 2nd respondent Corporation will conduct a fresh hearing in the matter after affording all opportunities to the petitioner, and informing him of the grounds for the proposed action. Orders shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-