C.Kalaiselvi v. The Principal Secretary to Government

ORDER This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 15.07.2024 thereby confirmed the order passed by the second respondent thereby removed the petitioner from the post of President of Paithur Panchayat, Attur Taluk, Salem District.

¶2The petitioner was elected President of Paithur Panchayat. While being so, on receipt of complaint from general public, the petitioner was served with charge memo by the second respondent. On receipt of explanation from the petitioner, the second respondent without being satisfied with the same, ordered to conduct enquiry by the third respondent. The third respondent convened a meeting as contemplated under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. In the said meeting, all the 12 ward members participated, in which except two members, other 10 members did not accept the charges initiated as against the petitioner. Even then, the second respondent conducted enquiry thereby removed the petitioner from the post of President of Paithur Panchayat. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the first respondent and the same was also dismissed.

¶3Mr.A.K.Sriram, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though out of 12 ward members, 10 members did not support the allegations as against the petitioner in the meeting convened by the third respondent, the second respondent differed with the views and without giving further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, removed her from the post of President. In fact, the petitioner sought for time to submit her explanation before the second respondent on the complaint. However, the petitioner was not given sufficient time to submit explanation and it was ordered to convene a meeting by the third respondent. The petitioner was set exparte before the second respondent. Therefore, it is clear violation of principles of natural justice. The appellate authority also mechanically dismissed the appeal without appreciating the above facts and circumstances.

3.1 In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of The District Collector and Inspector of District Panchayat, Villupuram District and another Vs. Devi Parasuraman1, in which the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court held as follows:

¶17In the light of the discussions made above, we summarise our views as follows :-

i) An act of the Inspector u/s 205 is quasi-judicial in nature;

ii) If the Inspector is satisfied with the explanation submitted by the President u/s 205, he is required to record his satisfaction for dropping the proceeding; and

iii) If the Inspector differs with the views expressed by the Village Panchayat and decides to remove the President or to drop the proceeding against the President, he is not only required to record the reasons for differing with the views of the Village Panchayat, but before taking any decision to remove 2009 (4) CTC 609 the President, the Inspector is also required to provide further notice to the President intimating the reasons for difference and can issue notification only on consideration of cause, if any, shown by the President. Accordingly, if the Inspector of Panchayat differs with the views expressed by the Village Panchayat and decides to remove the President or to drop the proceedings against the President, the Inspector of Panchayat is not only required to record the reasons for differing with the views of the Village Panchayat but before taking any decision to remove the President, the Inspector is also required to provide further notice to the President and opportunity stating the reasons for difference.

¶4Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused all the materials placed before this Court.

¶5On perusal of the counter filed by the fourth respondent and on hearing the submissions made by Mr.C.Kathiravan, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the fourth respondent revealed that on receipt of complaint from the general public of Paithur Panchayat, the second respondent issued notice dated 04.07.2023. The second W.P.No.24409oofo2024 respondentoframedofiveochargesoagainstotheopetitioneroasofollows:oo Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;?1 Mj;J}h; Cuhl;rp xd;wpak; igj;J}h; Cuhl;rpapy; fyf; iu. kz;fiu mikf;Fk; gzpfSf;F Cuhl;rp kd;w jiyth.; jdJ khkdhh; bgahpy; ntiybraj; jhftk[ ; kw;Wk; Ml;Lf;bfhll; if mikf;Fk; gzpf;F gadhspf;F tH'f; ntzo; a bjhifapy; nkhro braj; jhftk[ .; igj;J}h; Cuhlr; p kd;w jiyth; jpUkjp/fiybry;tp. vdg; th; kPJ bghJkff; splk; ,Ue;J gf[ hh; tug;bgw;wjhftk[ .; gf[ hh; kD bjhlhg; hf Mj;J}h; xd;wpajj; pw;Flg; ll; igjJ; }h; Cuhl;rpapy; kfhj;kh fhej; p njrpa Cuf tsh;rr; p ntiy cWjp jpll; jj; pdf; PH; eilbgWk; gzpfspy; CHy; eilbgWtJ Fwpj;J bghJ kff; splkpUe;J bgwgg; ll; gf[ hh; kDtpd; mogg; ilapy 03/09/2022 kw;Wk; 20/09/2022 Mfpa njjpfspy; fs Mat; [ nkw;bfhz;ljpy; gjpntLfs; 1 Kjy; 7 tiu rhptu guhkhpf;fgg; ltpy;iy vdtk[ .; ,g;gjpntlo; y; bgUkg; hyhd FLk;g jiyth; kw;Wk; cWgg; pdhf; spd; g[ifgg; l'f; s; xll; gg; ltpy;iy vd;Wk;. Cuhl;rp kd;w jiyth; jpUkjp/fiyr;bry;tp vdg; thpd; khkdhh; fej; rhkp j-bg mjj; pagg; ft[zl; h; ,weJ; Rkhh; gjJ; Mz;Lfs; Mfptpll; J vd;Wk;. Mdhy; ,tuJ bgahpy; kfhj;kh fhej; p njrpa Cuf ntiy cWjp jpll; jj; py; fyf; iu. kz;fiu mikf;Fk; gzpfSf;F Rkhh; K:d;W yl;rk; Ug: haf; F; kfhj;kh fhej; p njrpa Cuf ntiy cWjp jpll; epjpapy; ,Ue;J brytplgg; l;Lss; jhf fs mat; py; fzl; wpagg; ll; jhf W.P.No.24409oofo2024 bjhptpff; gg; l;Lss; J/ Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;?2 nkwf; hQqk; Fw;wr;rhl;L?1 bjhlhg; hf igjJ; }h; Cuhlr; p kd;w jiyth; jpUkjp/fiyr;bry;tp vdg; tiu TLjy; Ml;rpah; (tshr; r; p). khtll; Cuf tshr; ;rp Kfik. nryk; Kd;g[ 30/09/2022 kw;Wk; 15/10/2022 khiy 5/00 kzpf;F tprhuizf;F M$h; MFk;go cjj; utplgg; l;Lk; tprhuizf;F M$uhfkYk.; mjwf; hd tpsff; Kk; ehsJ njjp tiu bjhptpff; tpy;iy vdtk[ Fw;wk; rhll; gg; l;Lss; J/ Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;?3 kfhjk; h fhej; p njrpa Cuf ntiy cWjp jpll; gzpfis nkw;bfhst; jwF; Cuhl;rp kd;w jiyth; jFej; xj;JiHg;g[ tH'f; hjjhy;. Cuhl;rpapd; tsh;r;rp kw;Wk; muR ey jpll; 'f; is rhptu bray;gLjj; Koahky; epYitapnyna css; J/ ,jdhy; muRfF; mtgb; gah; Vwg; l Cuhlr; p kd;w jiyth; fhuzkhf css; jhftk[ ; Fw;wk; rhll; gg; lL; ss; J/ Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;?4 nkYk.; 01/11/2022. 07/11/2022 kw;Wk; 11/11/2022 Mfpa njjpfspy; ntiy ml;il gJ[ gpj;J ju ml;il xd;Wf;F jy U/:1000-? nflg; jhf bghJkff; splk; ,Ue;J gf[ hh; kDbgw;wJ vdtk[ .; ,g;gf[ hh; kD bjhlhg; hf 02/11/2022 kw;Wk; 21/11/2022 njjpfspy; fs Mat; [ nkw;bfhz;ljpy; ntiy ml;il xd;Wf;F U/:1.000-? nfll; J cWjp bra;ag;gl;lJ vdt[k; bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;?5 (As per the Annual Master circular entitlement 1/3.1 All the Job cards must remain in the custody of concerned house hold and possession of Hob card by any one other person including MGNREGS Functionaries, without valid reasons, will be considered as an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Act)?d;go ntiy ml;ilf;F tpz;zg;gpj;j egUf;F 15 ehl;fSf;Fs; mtUf;fhd ntiy ml;ilapid tH';f ntz;Lk;/

¶6Simultaneously, the third respondent was also served notice with regards to the charges alleged against the petitioner. On enquiry, the fourth respondent also submitted report before the second respondent. However, the petitioner on receipt of notice from the second respondent failed to submit her explanation. On the strength of the report, the second respondent ordered to convene a meeting by the third respondent as contemplated under Section 205 of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. On receipt of the said direction, the third respondent issued notice to the petitioner as well as other 12 ward members to convene a meeting. After convening a meeting, the third respondent recorded the statement of all the ward members and submitted report. Accordingly, out of 12 ward members, 10 of them did not accept the charges alleged as against the petitioner and two of them accepted the charges levelled against the petitioner.

¶7On perusal of the said report, all the 10 ward members mechanically deposed that they do no know about the allegations. They never denied the charges levelled as against the petitioner. It shows that they conveniently deposed in order to safeguard the petitioner. Therefore, the second respondent rightly concluded that the petitioner failed to submit any explanation on the charges levelled against her and also other ward members did not explain with proper reasons to deny the charges and mechanically did not support the charges.

¶8On perusal of the charges, the petitioner misappropriated huge money from Paithur Panchayat. Therefore, the second respondent removed the petitioner from the post of President of Paithur Panchayat. It is relevant to extract the provisions under Section 205 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.

¶205Removal of President-

(1)The Inspector -(a)of his own motion, or(b)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, is satisfied that the President willfully omits or refuses to carry out or disobeys any provision of this Act, or any Rule, bye-law, Regulation, or lawful order made or issued under this Act or abuses any power vested in him, the Inspector shall,by notice in writing, require the President to offer within a specified date, his explanation with respect to his acts of omission or commission mentioned in the notice.

(2)If the explanation is received within the specified date and the Inspector considers that the explanation is satisfactory, he may drop further action with respect to the notice. If no explanation is received within the specified date or if the explanation received is in his opinion not satisfactory, he shall forward to the Tahsildar of the taluk a copy of the notice referred to in sub-section (1) and the explanation of the President if received within the specified date with a proposal for the removal of the President for ascertaining the views of the Village Panchayat.

(3)The Tahsildar shall then convene a meeting for the consideration of the notice and the explanation, if any, and the proposal for the removal of the President, at the office of the Village Panchayat at a time appointed by the Tahsildar.

(4)A copy of the notice of the meeting shall be caused to be delivered to the President and to all the members of the Village Panchayat by the Tahsildar at least seven days before the date of the meeting.

(5)The Tahsildar shall preside at the meeting convened under this section and no other person shall preside thereat. If, within half an hour appointed for the meeting, the Tahsildar is not present to preside at the meeting, the meeting shall stand adjourned to a time to be appointed and notified to the members and the President by the Tahsildar under sub-section (6).

(6)If the Tahsildar is unable to preside at the meeting, he may, after recording his reasons in writing, adjourn the meeting to such other time as he may appoint. The date so appointed shall be not later than thirty days from the date so appointed for the meeting under sub-section (3). Notice of not less than seven clear days shall be given to the members and the President of the time appointed for the adjourned meeting.

(7)Save as provided in sub-sections (5) and (6), a meeting convened for the purpose of considering the notice and the explanation, if any, and the proposal for the removal of the President under this section shall not, for any reason, be adjourned.

(8)As soon as the meeting convened under this section is commenced, the-Tahsildar shall read to the Village Panchayat the notice of the Inspector and the explanation if any, of the President [and the proposal for the removal of the President] [Inserted by Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1999 (Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1999).], for the consideration of which it has been convened.[(8-A) There shall be no debate in any meeting under this section.] [Sub-section 8-A was inserted by Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1999 (Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1999).]

(9)The Tahsildar shall not speak on the merits of the notice or explanation nor shall he be entitled to vote at the meeting.

(10)The views of the Village Panchayat shall be duly recorded in the minutes of the meeting and a copy of the minutes shall forthwith, on the termination of the meeting, be forwarded by the Tahsildar to the Inspector.

(11)The Inspector may, after considering the views of the Village Panchayat in this regard, in his discretion either remove the President from office by notification with effect from a date to be specified therein or drop further action.

(12)The Government shall have power to cancel any notification issued under sub-section (11) and may, pending a decision on such cancellation, postpone the date specified in such notification.

(13)[ Any person in respect of whom a notification has been issued under sub-section (11) removing him from the office of President shall, unless the notification is cancelled under sub-section (12), be ineligible for election as President until the expiry of three years from the date specified in such notification as postponed by the order, if any, issued under sub-section (12).] [Sub-section (13) substituted by Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 2007 (Tamil Nadu Act 16 of2007) w.e.f. 8th June 2007.]

¶9Section 205(11) of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 says that on receipt of the views of the Village Panchayat in a meeting convened by the third respondent, the Inspector of Panchayat's discretion either remove the President from Office by notification with effect from the date to be specified therein or drop further action. Therefore, the second respondent has power of discretion to remove the President of Village Panchayat though some of the members supported the President's continuance as President of Village Panchayat. Further, the second respondent never differed from the views of Village Panchayat. On the powers vested with him under Section 205(11), the second respondent can remove the President on his considered opinion that the President has to be removed from the post. If the second respondent differs from the opinion of the Village Panchayat, then the petitioner is entitled for further notice and the second respondent has to state the reasons for his difference from the opinion of the Village Panchayat. Here in the case on hand, the second respondent never differed with the views of the Village Panchayat. Therefore, the judgment cited by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is not applicable to the case on hand. Further, the first respondent who is being the appellate authority, rightly considered the above facts and circumstances and rightly rejected the appeal.

¶10In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders passed by the first and second respondents. As such, this writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

23.10.2024

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order lok

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. lok To

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009

2.The District Collector/Panchayat Inspector, District Collectorate, Salem District

3.The Tahsildar, Attur Taluk, Salem District

4.The Block Development Officer, Attur Taluk, Salem District

23.10.2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 18.10.2024 Pronounced on : 23.10.2024 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.No.24409 of 2024 and WMP.Nos.26690 & 30680 of 2024 C.Kalaiselvi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009 2.The District Collector/Panchayat Inspector, District Collectorate, Salem District 3.The Tahsildar, Attur Taluk, Salem District 4.The Block Development Officer, Attur Taluk, Salem District ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari after calling from all the records pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.785/2023/A5 dated 15.07.2024 in proceedings GO(3pa) No.20 dated 15.07.2024 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Sriram, Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Rajakumar For Respondents For R1 to 3 : Mr.S.Arumugam, Government Advocate For R4 : Mr.C.Kathiravan, Special Government Pleader