P.Chinna Ponnu v. The District Collector, Collectorate Perambalur, Perambalur District & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 02.04.2009PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHUW.P.No.11952 of 2008P.Chinna Ponnu... PetitionerVs.1.The District Collector, Collectorate Perambalur, Perambalur District.2.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Collectorate Perambalur, Perambalur District.3.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) Veppanthattai Panchayat Union, Veppanthattai, Perambalur District.4.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Veppanthattai, Perambalur District.... RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records ofthe 1st respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.NO.5271/2006/A3,dated 09.04.2008 under Section 205 of The Tamil Nadu PanchayatsAct, 1994 which is culminated into notification bearing No.VI(2)226 of /2008 Page No.192 Government Gazette, dated 23.04.2008 andquash the same.For petitioner: Mr.V.SubbarayanFor respondent: Mr.Malarvizhi Udhyakumar Spl. Govt. Pleader for RR1, 2 & 3 Mr.B.B.Senthilkumar for R3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDERChallenging the order passed under Section 205(11) of TheTamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "theAct") removing the petitioner from the post of President, thepetitioner has come forward with this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is an elected President of Pillur VillagePanchayat in Perambalur District. The Inspector of Panchayats(District Collector), Perambalur District by his proceedings inNa.Ka.No.5271/06/A3, dated 20.11.2007 framed as many as 7charges against him on certain allegations of irregularities saidto have been committed by him while discharging his functions asPresident. The petitioner submitted her explanation wherein shehad denied all such allegations made against her. There wereseveral other communications in this regard, which are not veryrelevant for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition.Finally, the first respondent directed the Tahsildar to hold ameeting to get the views of the Village Panchayat on the aboveallegations. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Vellore, afterrecording the views of the Village Panchayat by his proceedingsin Na.Ka.No. 1/2008/B1 dated 19.03.2008 submitted a report alongwith the minutes of the Village Panchayat. Admittedly, thepetitioner participated in the said meeting. Thereafter, theDistrict Collector issued the impugned order removing thepetitioner from the office.3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioneris that the allegations contained in the charge memorandum arenot at all sufficient to initiate the proceedings under Section205 of the Act. He would point out that the main charge is the 1stcharge, wherein it is alleged that the petitioner failed toappoint a Village Panchayat Assistant in time. He would furthersubmit that the power of appointing Village Panchayat Assistantis vested with Appointment Committee and not with the president.Therefore, the said charge is baseless. He would further submitthat in the event the first charge fails, all the other charges,being consequential, should also fail. He would further submitthat under Section 205 (11) of the Act, unless the act of thePresident amounts to willful omission or refusal or disobedienceto carryout the provisions of the Act, Rules or Orders, etc.,there can not be any charge under Section 205 of the Act. Inthis case, according to the petitioner, absolutely, there is nomaterial to show that he willfully omitted to appoint VillageAssistant and in similar fashion omitted to discharge theother functions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. He would lastly submit that in any event, the impugnedorder is liable to be set aside, because there was failure on thepart of the first respondent to afford an opportunity as requiredunder Section 205 (11) of the Act after getting views from theVillage Panchayat.5. The learned Special Government Pleader for therespondents 1, 2 and 4 would refute all the above contentions.According to her, the allegations leveled against the petitionerare very serious in nature and the allegations as enumerated inthe Charge Memorandum would be suffice to hold that thepetitioner is liable to be removed from the post under Section205 of the Act. She would further submit that all the materialsincluding the explanation submitted by the petitioner were dulyconsidered by the first respondent before arriving at theconclusion to remove him from the post. She would lastlysubmit that there is no specific direction contained in Section205 of the Act to afford yet another opportunity to thepetitioner. She would, therefore, pray for dismissal of thewrit petition.6. In my considered opinion, the writ petitioner is bound tosucceed on the main ground that the impugned order is patentlydefective inasmuch as there has been no discussion orconsideration of the views of the Village Panchayat, as requiredunder Section 205(11) of the Act. Section 205(11) of the Actreads as under:-"205. Removal of President – (1) TheInspector -(11) The Inspector may, after consideringthe views of the Village Panchayat in thisregard, in his discretion either remove thePresident from Office by notification witheffect from a date to be specified therein ordrop further action."7. A plain reading of the above provision would make one tounderstand without any doubt that it is the primary duty of theInspector of Panchayat to consider the views of the VillagePanchayat. It is only on such consideration, the Inspector ofPanchayat may use his discretion either to remove the Presidentfrom the office or to drop further action. Here, it should beremembered that the discretion vested with him cannot beexercised in an arbitrary manner. The Inspector of Panchayat is,therefore, required to apply his mind into the facts, considerthe views of the Village Panchayat and to pass an order in ajudicious manner, which should naturally contain the reasons for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ such decision. Of course, he is not bound by the views of theVillage Panchayat. But, the order passed by the Inspector ofPanchayat should reflect the application of his mind into thefacts and consideration of the views of the Village Panchayat. Ifhe fails to do so, undoubtedly, the order would be devoid ofmerits and therefore, the same would be liable to be set aside. 8. Removing a democratically elected President from theoffice, will have serious consequences and therefore, the samecannot be lightly viewed and dealt with. Removing an electedPresident without following the mandatory procedures and withouthaving due regard to the facts and circumstances of the casewould be detrimental to the very democratic process by which theelectorate have chosen him. That is the reason why, probably thelaw-makers have made a specific provision under Section 205(11)of the Act, that the Inspector of Panchayat should consider theviews of the Village Panchayat. Therefore, I am of the consideredview, that the said provision should be scrupulously followed bythe Inspector of Panchayat, while passing any order removing thePresident from the office. 9. In the case on hand, a perusal of the impugned orderwould go to show that absolutely neither there is any discussionnor consideration of the views of the Village Panchayat. TheInspector of Panchayat has only dealt with the allegationsrelating to the charges, explanation submitted by the petitionerand has passed the impugned order. Thus, the impugned order doesnot satisfy the requirements of Section 205(11) of the Act.10. There is yet another reason to interfere with theimpugned order. Though there is no specific provision in Section205 of the Act to the effect that a copy of the report of theTahsildar should be furnished to the President and his furtherexplanation should be called for, in my considered opinion, incompliance with the principles of natural justice, a copy of thereport of the Tahsildar should be furnished and furtheropportunity should be given to the President to make hisrepresentation regarding the same. In a case where the Presidentis a party to the meeting, in which the views of the Panchayatwere recorded by the Tahsildar, it may not be necessary that acopy of such report should be furnished to him, as he had fullknowledge of the views of the Panchayat. In such case, evenwithout furnishing a copy of the report of the Tahsildar, he canbe called upon to make his further representation. In a casewhere the President did not participate in the meeting of theVillage Panchayat, in which the views were recorded by theTahsildar then, in my considered opinion, it is absolutelynecessary for the Inspector of Panchayat to furnish a copy of thereport of the Tahsildar and then to afford an opportunity to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ President to make his representations. In the case on hand, sincethe petitioner participated in the meeting, the question offurnishing of copy of such report does not arise. But, the factremains that there was no opportunity given to him to make hisrepresentation regarding the views of the Village Panchayat.This in my considered opinion, violates the principles of naturaljustice. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and theimpugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back tothe first respondent for fresh orders in accordance with lawafter affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner asindicated above. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos. 1 to 3 of 2008stand closed. kmkSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.The District Collector, Collectorate Perambalur, Perambalur District.2.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Collectorate Perambalur, Perambalur District.3.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) Veppanthattai Panchayat Union, Veppanthattai, Perambalur District.4.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Veppanthattai, Perambalur District.+ 1 cc to Mr. V. Subbarayan, Advocate SR No.12333+ 1 cc to the Government Pleader, High Court, Madras SR No.12607CA(CO)SR/21.4.2009W.P.No. 11952 of 2008