Madras High Court
Senthilkumar vs The District Collector on 8 November, 2016
Author: M.Govindaraj
Bench: M.Govindaraj
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.11.2016 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ W.P.(MD) No.5766 of 2012 and M.P.(MD) No.3 of 2012 Senthilkumar ... Petitioner -vs- 1.The District Collector Trichy 2.The Assistant Director (Panchayat) O/o.The District Collector Trichy 3.The Block Development Officer Anthanalloor Panchayat Union Trichy District 4.The President Thiruchendurai Village Panchayat Thiruchendurai Trichy District ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the fourth respondent Resolution No.Nil, dated 09.02.2010 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service. !For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian ^For Respondents : Mr.S.Kumar Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1 & R2 No appearance for R3 & R4 :ORDER
The writ petitioner was working as a Panchayat Assistant in Thiruchendurai Village Panchayat, Anthanallur Panchayat Union. On 22.09.2008, when the Deputy Block Development Officer was conducting inspection, it was alleged that the petitioner had wantedly absented himself and in the inspection, it was found that the Panchayat money was transferred from one account to another account and also direct payment was made to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board by the petitioner, without any sanction, on his own accord. Therefore, the Block Development Officer, Anthanalloor Panchayat Union / third respondent herein issued a charge memo to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation explaining that he had not misappropriated any money and the fourth respondent alone was responsible for the same as he was having the cheque drawing power.
2. Subsequently, the District Collector, Trichy / first respondent, vide proceedings No.e.f.jh10/2546/09, dated 13.03.2009, had placed the petitioner under suspension. Thereafter, the fourth respondent, vide resolution No.13, dated 16.07.2010, passed by the Panchayat, removed the petitioner from service and the third respondent communicated the same to the petitioner, vide letter No.e.f.M1/2395/11, dated 05.08.2011. The petitioner had approached the fourth respondent, under R.T.I.Act, for copy of the resolution removing him from service and then only, the copy of the resolution, dated 16.07.2010, was furnished to him. According to the petitioner, the resolution was passed on 16.07.2010, but it was not at all served on the petitioner by the respondents. Aggrieved by the resolution removing him from service, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that he was removed from service without following the principles of natural justice. The respondents have not chosen to issue charge memo or conduct enquiry before imposing the capital punishment. As per Section 106 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, the Executive Officer is empowered to impose minor or major penalty. As per G.O.Ms.No.175, Rural Development Department, dated 05.12.2006, it is mandatory to give fair opportunity to the delinquent before imposing punishment by conducing personal enquiry and getting explanation; Against the order of punishment, appeal remedy is available before the Block Development Officer within thirty days and thereafter, second appeal remedy is available before the District Collector within sixty days from the date of appeal order.
4. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the first respondent being the Appellate Authority has directly passed the order of suspension. But, a reading of the order of suspension would show that it is predetermined and it is in the nature of removing the petitioner from service. Therefore, the fourth respondent, being under the control of the first respondent, could not have naturally passed the removal order and therefore, the removal order under instructions from Superiors is vitiated for official bias. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in R.Chandrasekar v. Inspector of Panchayats-cum-District Collector, reported in (2010) 6 MLJ 575, wherein this Court has set aside the similar resolution removing the petitioner therein from the post of Village Assistant as it was one of the violation of principles of natural justice.
5. The fourth respondent has filed counter affidavit. Curiously, the third respondent is also a co-signatory of the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent. The averments made in the counter affidavit defend the action of the third respondent in toto. But, it is not known as to why the third respondent has not filed counter affidavit directly and joined as a co- signatory with the fourth respondent. Whatever may be, the impugned order under challenge, is nothing but removal of the petitioner from service.
6. It is the settled legal position that whenever termination order is issued, principles of natural justice should be adhered to, moreso, when the stigma is attached causing civil consequences in the career of the delinquent. In the present case, there is an allegation on the petitioner that he had not maintained the account properly and he had misappropriated the Panchayat money. Therefore, it is mandatory on the part of the respondents to conduct an enquiry by framing charges in adherence to the principles of natural justice. Since the respondents have not done so and simply removed the petitioner from service by way of a resolution, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and therefore, it is liable to be set aside.
7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 09.02.2010, passed by the fourth respondent is set aside and a direction is issued to reinstate the petitioner in service. It is submitted that Special Officers have taken charge of the Village Panchayats. It is open to the Special Officer of Thiruchendurai Village Panchayat to take further action in accordance with law, if he chooses to do so. No costs.
Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.
To:
1.The District Collector, Trichy.
2.The Assistant Director (Panchayat), O/o.The District Collector, Trichy.
3.The Block Development Officer, Anthanalloor Panchayat Union, Trichy District.
4.The President, Thiruchendurai Village Panchayat, Thiruchendurai, Trichy District..