Delayed challenge to termination following prolonged absence did not warrant appellate interference.

The appellant was appointed as a Panchayat Assistant in Evoor Panchayat in 2004.

He claimed that he was prevented from attending duty from February 2008, while the respondents maintained that he remained absent despite receiving a show-cause notice and not participating in the enquiry.

The Panchayat terminated his services on 10 February 2010 and appointed the fourth respondent in his place in 2011.

After an earlier writ petition resulted in liberty to challenge the termination, the appellant filed writ petitions in 2013 challenging the termination and, in one petition, the subsequent appointment.

The Single Judge dismissed both petitions on 24 August 2021; the appellant appealed.

1. Whether the Single Judge’s dismissal of the appellant’s challenge to his termination and the consequential appointment of the fourth respondent warranted interference in the intra-court appeals.

2. Whether the appellant’s admitted absence from duty, failure to respond to the show-cause notice, and delay in challenging the termination supported dismissal of his writ petitions.

The judgment cites no specific statute, regulation, or precedent. It applies the appellate principle that interference with a Single Judge’s decision is not warranted absent infirmity or illegality, while assessing the appellant’s conduct and the record before the Court.

The Court also considered the appellant’s receipt of a show-cause notice, his failure to respond or participate in the enquiry, and the delay in challenging the termination as relevant circumstances.

The Court noted that the appellant had not attended duty from February 2008 and had admittedly received the show-cause notice, but neither submitted an explanation nor participated in the enquiry.

Although he claimed he had been prevented from attending work, he did not promptly challenge that alleged action, and the termination order was made in February 2010.

He filed the subsequent writ petitions only in 2013, after the earlier proceeding had granted liberty to challenge the termination.

Finding that the Single Judge had considered the facts and materials, the appellate Bench found no infirmity or illegality warranting interference.

It made no order as to costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.