Madras High Court
V. Subramani vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr. on 18 January, 2001
Author: D. Murugesan
Bench: D. Murugesan
ORDER D. Murugesan, J.
1. Mr. K.R. Tamizhmani, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. By consent the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.
2. In the writ petition the petitioner has challenged the proceedings of the 2nd respondent made in Na.Ka.6639/97/Uo E(Uoo)/A7 dated 4-4-2000 and the order of the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms. No. 308 Rural Development Department dated 27-11-2000. It is the case of the petitioner that he was elected as President of Keelur Panchayat during the year Oct. 1996 and has been functioning as such from the said date. Based upon a complaint given by the Vice President, the 2nd respondent initiated the proceedings under Section 205(l)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act hereinafter called "the Act" and issued a notice on 6-8-1999 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation for certain allegations levelled by the Vice President against the petitioner. One of the allegations is that the petitioner has forged the signature of the Vice President in the cheque and withdrew money from the bank. Apart from the above charge it was alleged that the petitioner spent Rs. 3,500/- when he is authorised to spend only up to Rs. 100/- for Republic Day celebration. He was also charged that without sending proper notices to the members he recorded the minutes as if the Meeting was conducted with 3 of his supporters. He was further charged that without any reosolution he has spent the amount for repairing a pump set. Even though an explanation was submitted by the petitioner, the same was not properly considered and finally by the impunged order dated 4-4-2000, the 2nd respondent removed the petitioner from the office of President. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent which was also rejected in G.O.Ms. No. 308 Rural Development Department dated 27-11-2000.
3. Mr. C. Selvaraju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that before the petitioner is removed from the office of President, the 2nd respondent ought to have followed the provisions contained in Section 205(l)(b) of the Act according to which a President could be removed by the Inspector of Panchayat on a representation in writing signed by not less than two thirds of the sanctioned strength of the village panchayat containing a statement of charges against the President and presented in person to the Inspector by any two of the members of the village panchayat. The learned counsel would submit that the 2nd respondent ought not to have entertained the complaint of the Vice President in the absence of a written statement in writing signed by not less than two thirds of the sanctioned strength and presented the said statement containing charges by any two members of village panchayat. The learned counsel would further contend that even assuming that the Inspector could act on the complaint of the Vice President, he should have given a notice to the petitioner requiring him to offer within a specified date his explanation in repsect of his acts of omission and commission mentioned in the notice. Only in the event that the explanation is not satisfactory, the Inspector shall forward to the Tahsildar of the Taluk a copy of the notice referred to Sub-section (1) of Section 205 of the Act and explanation of the President if received within the specified date, with proposal for removal of the President for ascertaining the views of the village panchayat. Thereafter only the Tahsildar shall convene a meeting for consideration of the notice and explanation if any, and the proposal for removal of the President at the office of the village panchayat at the time appointed by Tahsildar. He also contended that as per Section 205(4) of the Act, a copy of the notice of the meeting shall be delivered to the President and to all the members of the village panchayat by the Tahsildar atleast seven days before the date of the meeting. After following the procedure under Section 205(5) to (10) the Inspector after considering the views of the village panchayat has to remove the President from the office by notification with effect from a date to be specified therein or drop further action. The learned counsel would contend that admittedly the 2nd respondent forwarded the copy of the notice and the explanation of the petitioner to the Tahsildar under Section 205(2) of theAct. However, the Tahsildar did not follow the procedure as laid down under Section 205(3) to (9) of the Act inasmuch as the views of the panchayat were not by two thirds majority of the members. Admittedly there were no two-third members who supported the removal of the petitioner from the office of the President. Hence, the impugned orders of the respondents based upon the view of village panchayat are liable to be quashed.
4. Secondly, the learned counsel submitted that in the absence of any finding as to the petitioner having committed forgery by signing the signature of the Vice President, the impugned proceedings are not sustain-able. In any event the forensic report relied upon by the respondents for removing the petitioner from the office of President was not furnished to the petitioner and therefore the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
5. In reply to the first contention of the learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. K.R. Tamizhmani, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that it is not correct to say that action for removing the petitioner from the office of President was taken only on the basis of the complaint of the Vice President. In fact, the impugned order itself specially refers to the fact that the said action was taken not only on the complaint of the Vice President but also on the complaint received from general public with regard to the charges levelled against the petitioner. In fact the 2nd respondent can also take suo motu action against the petitioner for removing from the office of President . When such a power is conferred on the 2nd respondent, it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent ought to have followed the procedures contemplated under Section 205(l)(b), 205(5) to (10). The learned Special Government Pleader contended that in fact complaints were received from the public also with regard to the charges levelled against the petitioner including the complaint of forgery of cheque received from the Vice President. These complaints, notice issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner and his explanation were forwarded to the Tahsildar by the 2nd respondent and considered at a meeting conveyed by the Tahsildar on 15-10-1999 and only on the recommendation of the said meeting the present impugned proceedings have been passed. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the 2nd respondent has not followed the procedures contemplated under Section 205(1) and (2) of the Act. Equally it is not correct to say that the Tahsildar has not followed the procedure contemplated under Section 205(3) to (9) of the Act.
6. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that in so far as the second and third contentions of the learned counsel for petitioner is concerned, the forensic report specially states that the signatures of the Vice President in the cheque is forged one. The petitioner is the custodian of the cheque book. Therefore, it should be presumed that the petitioner alone has forged the said signature. Further, all the four charges levelled against the petitioner are proved and even if the petitioner's contention with regard to the forgery of the signature is accepted, the other charges having been found to be true would be sufficient to sustain the impugned orders of removal of the petitioner from the office of the President. Therefore, those two contentions are also liable to be rejected.
7. Section 205(11) of the Act empowers the Inspector to remove the President from the office by notification from a date to be specified therein or drop further action after considering the views of the village panchayat in this regard meaning thereby that the said power has to be exercised only after considering the views of the village panchayat. I have gone through the proceedings of the meeting of the village panchayat dated 15-10-1999 convened by the Tahsildar, Chenglepet purusant to the communication of the District Collector namely the 2nd respondent dated 18-9-1999 to consider the removal of the petitioner from the office of President. The Tahsildar also recorded the views of the village panchayat in the mintues of the meeting and has forwarded the said minutes to the Inspector namely the 2nd respondent, who has passed the impugned order dated 4-4-2000 removing the petitioner from the office of the President only on the said views of the village panchayat. I have perused the files made available to the Court by the learned Special Government Pleader and the copy of the views of the village panchayat as communicated by Tahsildar to the 2nd respondent in Na. Ka. No. 7413/99 Al dated 15-10-1999. In the said letter it is stated that seven members attended the meeting on 12-10-1999 convened by the Tahsildar at 11.00 am. including the petitioner leaving only six members to express their views. Out of the remaining six members, four members did not vote and they remained neutral, two members voted against the removal of the President and none voted for removal. Therefore, the Tahsildar has forwarded the views of the members as there is no necessity of removing the President from his office, When the said views of the village panchayat as communicated by the Tahsildar are in favour of the petitioner, I do not find any reason in the impugned order adduced by the 2nd respondent to reject the said views of the village panchayat. From a persual of the entire proceedings of the 2nd respondent, it is very clear that the action against the petitioner has been taken on the basis of the complaint of the Vice President as well as from the public. The Inspector having resorted to seek for explanation from the petitioner in his notice dated 16-8-1999 and after receiving the explanation from the petitioner on 23-8-1999, forwarded both the notices issued by him to the petitioner and the explanation offered by the petitioner to the Tahsildar, Chenglepet as per Section 205(2) of the Act, ought to have accepted the views of the village panchayat as recorded in the minutes of the meeting under Section 205(10) of the Act. When such minutes specifically refer to the fact that the village panchayat was not in favour of removing the petitioner from the office of the President, I do not find any justification for the 2nd respondent to pass the impugned order removing the petitioner from the office of the President completely giving a go by to the views of the village panchayat. Going by the scheme of the Act, it is very clear that when the Inspector of Panchayat is conferred with a power of removal of the President, it should not be exercised arbitrarily and without application of mind to the facts of the case. In order to safeguard the interest of elected representatives from arbitrary removal, the legislatures have thought to impose the stringent procedures to be adopted by the Inspector of Panchayat before such an order of removal is passed. In fact the Inspector of Panchayat may on his own or on a representation in writing signed by not less than two thirds of sanctioned strength of the village panchayat containing the charges against the President and prescribed the same by any two members of the village panchayat, has to forward the complaint to the President for explanation. In the event the Inspector of Panchayat is not satified with the explanation offered by the petitioner, he has to forward the notice and explanation to the Tahsildar of the village panchayat calling upon him to convene a meeting of the members of the village panchayat and to forward the views of the said village panchayat for taking further action. Therefore, unless and until the procedures contemplated under Section 205(2) to (10) are strictly complied with, the Inspector of Panchayat cannot resolve to remove the petitioner from the office of the President by virtue of the provisions under Section 205(11) of the Act. Admittedly, the Inspector of Panchayat namely the 2nd respondent, after receving the complaint even though not presented to him in conformity with Section 205(l)(b) of the Act by two-thirds sanctioned strength of the village panchayat presented in person to the Inspector by two of the members of the village panchayat, had resorted to forward the complaint of the Vice President and villagers calling for an explanation from the President under Section 205(1) (b) of the Act and after receiving the explanation and having not satisfied with the same, he had also forwarded a copy of the notice issued to the President under Sub-section (1) of Section 205 and the explanation of the President received with a proposal for removal of President to the Tahsildar under Section 205 (2) of the Act for ascertaining the views of the village panchayat. Pursuant to that the village panchayat expressed their views against the removal as communicated by the Tahsildar in his letter dated 15-10-1999. Therefore, when the views of the village panchayat were made available to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent ought not to have taken a different view that the one taken by the village panchayat. Of course under Section 205(11) of the Act, the Inspector has got a discretion either to remove the President from the office by notification with effect from a date specified therein or drop further action after considering the views of the village panchayat. Such a discretion cannot be arbitrarily exercised by the Inspector of Panchayat. It is to be borne in mind that there are no two views expressed by the members of the village panchayat one for removal and another for not removing the President. The unanimous view of the village panchayat is not to remove the petitioner from the office of the President. Therefore, there cannot be a further discretion exercised by the Inspector of Panchayat for rejecting the only view of the members of the village panchayat. Moreover the Vice President, the complainant also attended the meeting but remained neutral and did not vote for removal of the petitioner from the President. The object of the Act in providing a set of procedure cannot be lightly taken by the respondents and give a go by to the views of the village panchayat. In that view of the matter, I do not find any justification in the impugned orders removing the petitioner from the office of the President completely ignoring the views of the village panchayat. Further, in the absence of any reason adduced by the Inspector of Panchayat namely the 2nd respondent for rejecting the view village panchayat, the impugned orders of removal of the petitioner from the office of the President is also unsustainable.
8. One more reason adduced by the Inspector of Panchayat that the forensic report specifcally states that the Vice President's signature has been forged. Therefore, a presmption has been drawn against the petitioner as if he has forged the signature of the Vice President. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the specific request he has not been furnished with a copy of the forensic report and such report has been relied upon behind the back of the petitioner for removing him from the office of the President. It is the further case of the petitioner that even in the forensic report nothing has been stated as to whether the petitioner has forged the signautre of the Vice President. Therefore, the reliance placed by the Inspector of Panchayat namely the 2nd respondent for removing the petitioner from the office of the President over the forensic report is totally erroneous and cannot sustain the impugned order. It Is not disputed by the learned Special Government Pleader that the copy of the forensic report was not furnished to the petitioner. Moreover, it is not the case of the respondents that the said report specifically implicates the petitioner of having committed the forgery by forging the signature of the Vice President. The fact that the signature of the Vice President was foreged by the petitioner has been only on presumption since the petitioner was the custodian of the cheque book at the relevant time. Merely because the petitioner is the custodian of the cheque book cannot be in any way presumed that the signatures of the Vice President as found in the cheques were actually forged by the petitioner. Non furnishing of a copy of the forensic report to the petitioner assumes much importance when a presumption of foregery has been drawn against him only on the basis of the said report. In this context, it is once again relevant to note that in village panchyat meeting held on 12-10-1999 even though the Vice President attended the meeting, he did not vote for the removal of the President namely the petitioner. On the other hand, he abstained from voting and remained neutral. Therefore, the removal of the petitioner from the office of the President on the basis of the forensic report on the presumption that he has forged the signature of the Vice President is also not supported by any further materials and in the absence of non furnishing of the same to the petitioner before the said report is sought to be relied upon against the petitioner, the reliance placed by the 2nd respondent over forensic report for removal of the petitioner from the office of the President cannot be sustained in the eye of law. On this ground also, the impugned orders of removal of the petitioner from the office of the President are liable to be set aside.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order of the 2nd respondent passed in Na.Ka. No. 6639/ 97/Uo E (Uoo)/A7 dated 4-4-2000 and the consequential order of the 1st respondent passed in G.O.Ms. No. 308 Rural Development Department dated 27-11-2000 are set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. Nos, 156 and 157 of 2001 are closed.