Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has stated that she was appointed as a part-time Clerk in the office of the first respondent, in the month of February, 2001. Since then she has been discharging her duties without any blemish. Her duties included collection of property tax, counter signing the measurement books, verifying the movement of materials and countersigning the bills, maintenance of books, collecting professional tax and house tax and remitting it to the first respondent. 3. On 111. 2002, the first respondent had issued a notice alleging that the petitioner had not done her work, properly and he had sought for an explanation to be submitted within a week from the date of receipt of the notice. The notice was vague and it did not disclose any reason for the allegation made. It did not disclose any deficiency in the working of the petitioner. However, the petitioner had submitted an explanation stating that there was no deficiency in her work and that she was willing to perform any work that was allotted to her. A copy of the letter, dated 211. 2002, had also been sent to the District Development Officer (Panchayat Union). However, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an order, dated 312. 2002, had been issued by the first respondent, terminating her from service. The said order merely states that the termination is based on the Resolution No.43, dated 30.12.2002. The order of the first respondent is mala fide in nature and it has been passed without following the principles of natural justice. No enquiry had been conducted against the petitioner before she was terminated from service. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent the averments made by the petitioner have been denied. It has been stated that the petitioner was appointed by the former President C. Veeran, who is the father of the petitioner, without following the procedures for making such appointment. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent the averments made by the petitioner have been denied. It has been stated that the petitioner was appointed by the former President C. Veeran, who is the father of the petitioner, without following the procedures for making such appointment. There is no record to show that the petitioner was appointed as per the relevant rules applicable to such appointment, nor was it based on a resolution of the council, which is mandatory, as per Section 106 of the Tamilnadu Panchayat Act, 1994. No records were available for the period from 19962001. Further, the petitioner has been irregular in her work and she has not been attending to her duties promptly and regularly. In such circumstances, the petitioner was removed from service by Resolution No.43, dated 30.12.2002. 5. Before the order, removing the petitioner from service, had been passed, a show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner showing the deficiencies in her work. Though the petitioner had received the said notice, on 111. 2002, she had not submitted any explanation for the said notice. Thereafter, the first respondent had issued another notice, on 211. 2002, and there was no explanation from the petitioner even thereafter. Subsequently notices, dated 111. 2002 and 211. 2002, had been sent to the petitioner giving her a further opportunity to submit her explanation. However, she had failed to do so. Another notice, dated 211. 2002, had been issued to the petitioner. Since, no explanation had been submitted by the petitioner she was removed from service, by a resolution passed by the council in Resolution No.43 of 2002. After the petitioner had been removed from service, the first respondent had appointed one Kumaraguru, who is the third respondent herein, as a part-time Clerk, as per Resolution No.44 of 2002. Since the impugned order passed by the first respondent removing the petitioner from service is in accordance with law, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as for the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to set aside the impugned order passed by the first respondent, removing the petitioner from service. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as for the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to set aside the impugned order passed by the first respondent, removing the petitioner from service. From the records available before this Court, it is clear that several notices had been issued to the petitioner asking her to show cause as to why she should not be terminated from service, based on the charges leveled against her. In spite of the petitioner having received the show cause notices, she has not chosen to reply by way of an explanation. 7. Further, the termination order, dated 312. 2002, issued by the first respondent, is based on the resolution passed by the council of the first respondent Panchayat and the petitioner had not challenged the said resolution. The impugned order passed by the first respondent is only consequential in nature. Further, it is seen that the petitioner had been appointed by her father, who was the former President of the first respondent Panchayat, without following the procedures for making such an appointment. The petitioner had been appointed only as a part-time Clerk. The petitioner has not shown that she had a right to the post in which she had been appointed. Further, the petitioner has not been in a position to show as to how the principles of natural justice had been violated in the passing of the termination order by the first respondent. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.