Madras High Court
S. Baskaran vs The Inspector Of Panchayats/District ... on 5 July, 2007
Equivalent citations: (2007)6MLJ846
Author: K. Chandru
Bench: K. Chandru
ORDER K. Chandru, J.
1. The first Writ Petition i.e. W.P. (MD) No. 885 of 2007 is filed by one Baskaran, who was appointed as Overhead Tank Operator (OHT Operator) on part-time basis with a salary of Rs. 600/- per month by the second respondent/Panchayat and according to the petitioner, he has been working in the said post for a period of five years and by a resolution dated 2.11.2006, his services were terminated by the Panchayat.
2. In Writ Petition (MD) No. 1266 of 2007, the petitioner is one D. Kandasamy, who was working as a part-time clerk and was terminated from service by an order dated 9.2.2007 given by the Village Panchayat.
3. Both the Writ Petitioners have come before this Court and filed the aforesaid Writ Petitions. Interim stay was granted in the case of W.P. (MD) No. 885 of 2007 on 3.2.007 for a period of eight weeks. Likewise, in W.P. (MD) No. 1266 of 2007, interim stay was granted on 12.4.2007 till the first week of June, 2007 and it was extended till 13.6.2007 and thereafter, there was no further extension.
4. In Writ Petition (MD) No. 5318 of 2007, the Panchayat President, who is the petitioner has challenged the order of the District Collector viz., seeking for a show cause as to why action should not be taken against her in the light of Section 205 of the Tamilnadu Panchayats Act 1994 for the gross disobedience of the two interim orders passed by the High Court as referred to above.
5. All the three Writ Petitions in some way are connected with each other and they are to be dealt with together.
6. Heard the learned Counsel of all the parties and have perused the records.
7. Admittedly, the two writ petitioners viz., OHT Operator and the part-time Village Clerk were holding ad hoc posts with a fixed salary. The reason for their termination found in case of OHT Operator is that he was not attending to the motor pump and there had been complaints from the public. In the case of part-time Village Clerk, a series of charges have been made and explanations have been sought for from the petitioner and the then termination has been made.
8. The first ground raised by the petitioners are that the Village Panchayat President has no power to terminate them and the President has no power as an executive authority under the Panchayats Act. However, this overlooks the fact that under Section 84(b) of the Panchayats Act r/w G.O.Ms. No. 230 Rural Development Department dated 15.10.1996. The part-time clerks and other panchayat servants functioning under the control of the Panchayat President as like they have a power to appoint, the power to remove also available to the Panchayat President. In both the cases, the Panchayat Council has passed a resolution seeking for the termination of two individuals.
9. More interestingly, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Panchayat, it was stated that the petitioner got the appointment as OHT Operator as he was the brother in law of the erstwhile Panchayat President and in the case of Panchayat clerk, he was the brother of the same Panchayat President. It is alleged that even while their appointment, no norms were followed and simply because they are related to the former Panchayat President, they have given the appointment order.
10. Be that as it may, in the case of the petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 885 of 2007, it is stated in the counter affidavit that he is a full time law student doing three year law course at Government College, Madurai and he was also working as a Librarian in the library attached to Naduvanpatti Village in Muthulingapuram Panchayat. This is not denied by any reply affidavit. Learned Special Government Pleader has also produced a letter issued by the Government Law College stating that the said person is a third year student of the Government Law College, Madurai. These factors were not mentioned by the petitioner. It is also not justified as to how a full time law student can be doing work in the Village Panchayat, which is situated at least 50 Kms away from Madurai. The other ground that there were public complaints against the petitioner was not denied and it is for the Panchayat to decide in the light of the public complaints whether the service of the petitioner should be retained or not. The concept of Principle of natural justice varies from circumstances to circumstances and it is not an inelastic doctrine. Part-time village functionaries appointed without following any norms cannot come before this Court stating that while terminating their service, principles of natural justice has to be followed and an enquiry to be held. Such contentions are not open under these circumstances.
11. Likewise in W.P. (MD) No. 1266 of 2007, all the charges were set out and explanations were called for and only thereafter, the Panchayat President has terminated his service. If for some reason, the action of the President or the Panchayat Council is illegal or arbitrary, there is always an appeal provided under the Act under Section 202 to the Inspector of Panchayat, who is the first respondent herein and the petitioner could have approached the said authority rather than coming before this Court stating that there are no alternative remedies available to him which is contrary to the provisions of law.
12. Under these circumstances, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, Interim orders are vacated and connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
13. In Writ Petition (MD) No. 5318 of 2007, the Panchayat President is challenging the show cause notice issued by the District Collector. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is stated that after receipt of notice, she contacted the Special Government Pleader to appear in the said two Writ Petitions and instructed to file Vacate Stay Petitions. As the vacation has begun for the Court, the matter could not be moved immediately. Nevertheless already persons have been appointed in the post held by the said two petitioners and therefore, there was no possibility for the two petitioners to be provided employment and they wanted to bring all these factors to the notice of this Court. As such, there is a plausible explanation by the petitioner herein. When there is only a limited interim order, steps have been taken to vacate the interim order on the advice of the Counsel, the petitioner should not be victimised on that score. Further, the writ petitions filed by the two individuals are also dismissed as they were without any legal basis. Under these circumstances, there is no necessity for the District Collector to proceed against the petitioner and also threaten her with proceedings under Section 205 of the Act will be taken for the alleged disobedience of the orders of the Court. In view of the same, the impugned show cause notice is quashed. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.