Judgment :- This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned Resolution No.531, dated 16.12.2013, passed by the third respondent Panchayat and the consequential impugned order, passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.12147/2007/A3, dated 09.08.2007 and the order passed by the second respondent vide Na.Ka.No.2239/2007/P2, dated 03.09.2007 and consequently, direct the third respondent to permit the petitioner to continue his work and regularise his service with all benefits from 02.01.2003. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Scavanger by the third respondent on consolidated pay through the Employment Exchange. The erstwhile Panchayat President created some problems to the petitioner and abused him by caste name, which caused mental agony to him. Due to that, he became ill and was taking treatment from 02.01.2003. 3. According to the petitioner, the Panchayat Clerks one Babu and Subramanian, drafted a petition and asked the petitioner to sign the same and he signed. The petitioner was not allowed to work because of the said letter. A charge memo was issued vide No.A1/350/2003, dated 17.03.2003. The petitioner sent a reply on 28.03.2003. But, without considering the explanation of the petitioner, the petitioner was not allowed to continue to work in the third respondent Panchayat. In the circumstances, the petitioner has sent a representation, dated 16.07.2007 to the first respondent for reinstatement. The first respondent rejected the request of the petitioner, on 09.08.2007 vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.12147/2007/A3. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the relief stated supra. 4. The third respondent filed counter affidavit, stating that the petitioner was appointed on consolidated pay purely on temporary basis. But the petitioner and three other Scavengers were absenting themselves frequently without prior permission of the third respondent. Therefore, the General Public complained to the third respondent stating that non-cleaning of drainage has caused health hazards. Therefore, the third respondent issued charge memo to the petitioner on 17.03.2003. The petitioner by his reply, dated 28.03.2003, admitted his unauthorised absence and stated that due to his ill-health, he could not attend the work. The third respondent further stated that if really the erstwhile Panchayat President had abused the petitioner, nothing prevented him from making a complaint against the Panchayat President to the Executive Authority or to the Police. However, the petitioner has not given any complaint to the authority. The third respondent further stated that if really the erstwhile Panchayat President had abused the petitioner, nothing prevented him from making a complaint against the Panchayat President to the Executive Authority or to the Police. However, the petitioner has not given any complaint to the authority. The petitioner's unauthorised absence was brought to the notice of the Panchayat Council and the Panchayat Council has passed a Resolution on 16.12.2013, to terminate the services of the petitioner and three others. Based on the said resolution, the petitioner was terminated from service. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation to the first respondent to reinstate him into service and the same was rejected by the first respondent, by impugned order, dated 09.08.2007 and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I have perused the materials available on record and considered the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. From the materials available on record, it is seen that the service of the petitioner was terminated on 16.12.2003 itself. The petitioner did not take any proceedings to set aside the same. The petitioner gave a representation only on 16.07.2007 to the first respondent. The same was rejected by the order, dated 09.08.2007. Though the order of termination was passed on 16.12.2003, the petitioner did not choose to challenge the said order immediately in the manner known to law and he has chosen to file the present writ petition, only in the year 2008, challenging the Resolution, dated 16.12.2003, passed by the third respondent and the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 09.08.2007 and the consequential order passed by the second respondent dated 03.09.2007. The petitioner has not taken any steps diligently to challenge the termination order, dated 16.12.2003 and having slept over the matter for a period of four years, cannot plead any equity. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is hit by delay and laches. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, No costs. It is open to the petitioner to send a representation to the third respondent for reinstatement. If any such representation is made, the third respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law.