Madras High Court
A. Sundar vs The Block Development Officer on 7 November, 2016
Author: M.Govindaraj
Bench: M.Govindaraj
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.11.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
W.P.(MD)No.2831 of 2009
A. Sundar .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Block Development Officer,
(Village Panchayat), T.Vadipatti,
Madurai District.
2. The President,
Thenkarai Panchayat, T.Vadipatti Taluk,
Madurai District.
3. Mrs.M.Amutha,
President,
Thenkarai Panchayat, T.Vadipatti Taluk,
Madurai District. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of
the second respondent issued in her proceedings in Na.Ka.No.317/2008, dated
10.03.2009 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to re-
instate the petitioner with all service and other monetary benefits.
!For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thirumuthy
^For R-1 : M/s.S.Bharathi
Government Advocate
For R-2 & R-3 : Mr.M.Saravana Kumar
:ORDER
This Writ petition has been filed to call for the records of the second respondent issued in her proceedings in Na.Ka.No.317/2008, dated 10.03.2009 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to re-instate the petitioner with all service and other monetary benefits.
2. The Writ petitioner was appointed as Overhead Tank(OHT) operator in the year 1990. It is the contention of the Writ petitioner that he made a complaint against the second respondent/President, Panchayat that there is some discrepancies in the payment of money collected from the employees towards group insurance scheme. After the complaint, the third respondent has deposited the money on 27.01.2009, 29.01.2009 and 18.03.2009. Thereafter, the third respondent issued a memo against the Writ petitioner on 11.02.2009, making allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner has not received any such memo. Suddenly, on 26.03.2009, the impugned order of removal from service was served on the petitioner. Challenging the impugned order, the present Writ petition is filed.
3. The Writ petitioner states that the violation of principles of natural justice is a main ground and also he would state that the copy of the complaint was not given to him and no enquiry was conducted and the third respondent in a limb of circumstances has removed the Writ petitioner.
4. The respondents 2 and 3 have filed a counter. It is stated that during the tenure of the third respondent, the family security fund covered under group insurance scheme has been properly implemented and the money collected under the group insurance scheme from the employees have been properly remitted into account and there is no misappropriation, due to paucity of funds, the Panchayat could have disbursed the salary belatedly and remitted the money, little late.
5. It is further re-iterated that the Panchayat was running with paucity of fund. At that juncture, the petitioner had frequently brought in expenses towards repairing and maintaining the motor pump sets. Due to the fault of the petitioner and his negligent attitude, even newly installed motor was impaired within a weeks time. Therefore, a warning was issued to the petitioner by the second respondent. When the matter was complained by the villagers, enquiry was conducted and it was found that the petitioner was working at Chennai and member of South India Cine and Photo Flood Workers Union, Vadapalani, Chennai -26. The proof of membership and payment given the petitioner were submitted to the third respondent. Based on a Show Cause notice issued to the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted, the petitioner was removed from service.
6. Heard both sides.
7. The allegation of the Writ petitioner that he was removed from service, without issuing any Show Cause notice, framing of charges and conduct of disciplinary proceedings, before imposing a capital punishment of removal from service. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the Judgment reported in 2014(10) SCC 301, (Raghubir Singh V. Haryana Roadways) and also, the Judgment of Industrial Court, Nagpur, for the purpose of showing violation of principles of natural justice, will vitiate the impugned order.
8. From the perusal of the documents before me, a copy of the complaint given by the villagers and the punishment imposed on the petitioner are only available. There is no Show Cause notice or framing of charges or proof for conducting any enquiry into the misconduct before imposing the order of removal from service could be seen.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the tenure of the third respondent was over. Now the Special Officer is appointed to conduct the affairs of the second respondent, Panchayat.
10. From the materials available, it is clear that the petitioner was removed from service, without following the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the second respondent in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.317/2008, dated 10.03.2009, for removing the petitioner from service, is set aside.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner is not at all residing in that place which causes so much hardship to the villagers to supply the water. Therefore, he would insist that a new Overhead Tank operator may be appointed in the place of the petitioner.
12. Since the impugned order is set aside, it is not possible to give a direction to appoint a new operator unless the petitioner was removed following the procedure known to law. However, it is open to the respondents to conduct an enquiry afresh from the stage of issuance of charge memo, in the manner known to law and to pass orders and thereafter, take further steps, as requested by them.
13. With these observations, the Writ petition is allowed. There is no order as to costs.
To
1. The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat), T.Vadipatti,Madurai District.
2. The President, Thenkarai Panchayat, T.Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.
3. Mrs.M.Amutha, President, Thenkarai Panchayat, T.Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District..