Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of withliberty to the second respondent to pass final orders, afteraffording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner including serviceof copy of the order of the District Collector to the petitioner
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the second respondent to pass final orders, after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner including service of copy of the order of the District Collector to the petitioner. Ifthe petitioner…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 10.06.2008 CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU W.P.No.49219 of 2006and M.P.No.1 of 2006 &M.P.No.1 of 2008K.M.Murugesan .. Petitionervs.
The Assistant Director of Panchayats, Old Nattamai Building, Salem 636 001.
The President, Kuppanur Panchayat Kuppanur & P.O., (Via) Sukkampatti Salem 636 122 .. RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from ousting the petitioner from service without following the due processof law and award costs. For petitioner : Mr.S.Ayyathurai For R1 : Mr.V.Arun,A.G.P. For R2 : Mr.M.Dhandapani,
O R D E RBy consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of mandamusforbearing the respondents from ousting the petitioner from service without following the due process of law.
The petitioner states that he was appointed as a part time clerk at Kuppanur Village Panchayat in Salem District and the said appointment was made by the Panchayat by passing an appropriateResolution. He would further state that in pursuance of the order of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appointment, he joined duty and he was also paid consolidated pay ofRs.1,000/- every month. Now the apprehension of the petitioner is that the respondents are likely to oust him from service without following due process of law.
The second respondent has filed a detailed counter wherein, the second respondent has stated that the Resolution said to have been passed by the Village Panchayat, appointing the petitioner as apart time clerk, was later on cancelled by the District Collector, Salem by Roc. No.5291/2006/A5 dated 07.12.2006 under Section 202 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994. Therefore, according to the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
Iheard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learnedAdditional Government Pleader for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
Admittedly, the order of appointment was issued by the Village Panchayat. The said order came to be issued in pursuance of the Resolution said to have been passed in Village Panchayat. But, some of the members made a representation to the District Collectorthat the said Resolution was not passed actually and it was only afabricated one. After holding enquiry, it appears that the DistrictCollector has cancelled the said Resolution.
Now, according to the learned counsel for the second respondent, in pursuance of the order of the District Collectorcancelling the Resolution, the second respondent has proposed toissue showcause notice to the petitioner and pass necessary orders after affording opportunity. The learned counsel for the second respondent would further submit that the petitioner would not be ousted from service without following the due process of law as provided under the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. The said statement of the learned counsel for the second respondent is recorded.
Operative part
In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the second respondent to pass final orders, after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner including service of copy of the order of the District Collector to the petitioner. Ifthe petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the District Collector, he is at liberty to challenge the same in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.sd/-Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ gmsTo1. The Assistant Director of Panchayats, Old Nattamai Building, Salem 636 001.2. The President, Kuppanur Panchayat Kuppanur & P.O., (Via) Sukkampatti Salem 636 1221 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.28461+1 cc To Mr.S.Ayyathurai, Advocate, SR.28005+1 cc To Mr.M.Dhandapani,, Advocate, SR.27866W.P.No.No.49219 of 2006kj [co]gkg/24.6
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of withliberty to the second respondent to pass final orders, afteraffording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner including serviceof copy of the order of the District Collector to the petitioner
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 — s. 202; Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.