Madras High Court
Valarmathi vs The District ... on 28 October, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 23.11.2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 29.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.16782 of 2021
Valarmathi ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Collector/Inspector of Panchayats,
Office of the District Collector,
Dindigul, Dindigul District.
2.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat),
Athur Union Office, Dindigul District.
3.The Zonal Deputy Block Development Officer,
Athur Union Office, Dindigul District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining
to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.2987/2021/A4, dated 28.10.2021
passed by the first respondent and quash the same.
1/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
For Petitioner :Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
for Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah
For Respondents :Mr.Veerakkathiravan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.A.K.Manickam
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorari,
seeking interference with the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.
2987/2021/A4, dated 28.10.2021, passed by the first respondent/District
Collector/Inspector of Panchayats, Dindigul and to set aside the same.
2.The petitioner hails from Scheduled Caste community and had
been elected as Village Panchayat President of Sitharevu Village, in the
year 2019. Allegations have been raised by her against the Panchayat
Clerk, who incidentally, is a son-in-law of the previous Panchayat
President. The said Panchayat Clerk was transferred to Ayyankottai
Village Panchayat, but, he was re-transferred to Sitharevu Village
Panchayat.
3.It had been claimed that an anonymous complaint had been sent
against the petitioner. On 02.10.2021, a Gramasabha meeting was held.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
The husband of the petitioner participated along with other village
people. It is the claim of the petitioner that her husband never interfered
with her official work. It is also claimed that the said Panchayat Clerk,
with mala fide intention, had induced other Panchayat members to send
complaints against the petitioner. The impugned order then came to be
passed on 28.10.2021, in which, it was stated that the petitioner had
failed to discharge her duty for providing basic amenities and further,
between 01.04.2021 and 30.09.2021, it was also found by the Deputy
Director (Panchayat) that expenditure had been sanctioned and spent
without following rules and regulations. It had been claimed by the
respondents that there had been revenue loss of Rs.4,43,820/-.
4.The petitioner claimed that under the impugned order, her power
of signing the cheques had been divested and the same had been vested
with the second and third respondents/Block Development Officer
(Village Panchayat), Athur Union Office and Zonal Block Development
Officer, Athur Union, by invoking Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu
Panchayats Act, 1994. The petitioner claimed that she had sent a detailed
representation on 01.11.2021 to cancel the said order, but, since there
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
was no response, the present Writ Petition has been filed seeking to set
aside the impugned order. It is claimed that no notice had been issued
prior to the passing of the impugned order.
5.A counter had been filed on behalf of the second
respondent/Block Development Officer, Athur Union, stating that
complaint had not been levied against the Panchayat Secretary by the
petitioner. It was also stated that the MGNREGS work was implemented
through the Village Panchayat and the President alone issued job card
and was allotting work, as Executive Officer. The work orders were
issued to successful contractors. The entire process was only under the
control of the President and the Secretary had no role in the tender
process.
6.It was also stated that the Government had ordered to conduct
Gramasabha on 02.10.2021 and accordingly, the Gramasabha was also
conducted in Sitharevu Panchayat. The first agenda was to approve the
expenditure upto 30.09.2021 made by the Village Panchayat. When the
agenda was read out, the general public opposed the expenditure. More
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
over, 12 Ward Members, out of the 15 Ward Members, boycotted the
Gramasabha. The public also alleged that the husband of the petitioner,
who was a former Union Chairman of Athur, interfered with official work
and was actually working on behalf of the petitioner herein. It was also
stated that even in the Gramasabha meeting, the petitioner's husband had
replied to the various queries raised by the public.
7.Thereafter, the District Collector, Dindigul, had directed the
second respondent to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. A report
was also submitted to the District Collector. An inspection was also done
by the Assistant Director (Panchayat) on the basis of the report of the
Block Development Officer, Athur and it is stated that there were some
financial irregularities, which caused revenue loss to a sum of
Rs.4,43,820/-.
8.It was also alleged that the petitioner had failed to conduct the
Panchayat meeting in regular intervals. It was further stated that the
District Collector, on the basis of the report and enquiry, issued the
impugned order, taking away the cheque signing power of the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
on a temporary basis in order to prevent further loss of public money.
Reliance was also placed on Section 203 of Tamil Nadu Panchayts Act,
1994, to justify the impugned order.
9.It was also stated that the Chief Secretary of the Government had
issued a circular that relatives, sons or husbands of the women elected
representatives should not interfere with the Panchayat administration. It
was specifically stated that in this case, the husband of the petitioner
actually interfered with official work. Various other allegations were
levied as against the petitioner herein. It was also stated that when
financial misdeeds are alleged, the cheque signing power can be
transferred from the Village Panchayat President to the Block
Development Officer, in cases of emergency. It was, therefore, stated
that the impugned order did not suffer for want of authority and should
be upheld by this Court.
10.Heard Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned Counsel for
Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah, learned Counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.Veerakkathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned Counsel for the respondents.
11.Both sides had also filed documents. The petitioner filed a
copy of the transfer order of the Village Panchayat Assistant and the
representation given her subsequent to the impugned order being passed.
An additional typed set was also filed by the petitioner giving the
proceedings of the second respondent along with a report of the Zonal
Deputy Block Development Officer, dated 01.10.2020 and also the
monthly Accounts Form and Certificate and work orders. The second
respondent filed notices issued by the second respondent to the petitioner
with respect to the removal of a particular encroachment and the
proceedings of the District Collector and copies of the complaints given
against the petitioner and also a series of photographs, wherein, it has
claimed the husband of the petitioner actually participated in the
Panchayat works.
12.Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner drew attention to the impugned order and stated that it is
very obvious that notice had not been issued to the petitioner before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
order had been passed withdrawing the cheque signing power from the
petitioner. The learned Counsel lamented that principles of natural
justice were not followed, were actually ignored and had been done so
deliberately. The learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the said
panchayat was originally meant for general category and thereafter, was
categorised as a reserved constituency and more particularly for woman
and the petitioner herein had won the elections in 2019. He stated that
due dignity was not shown to the petitioner herein. He also stated that
the Panchayat Clerk, who had been transferred by the petitioner herein,
some how was able to come back by getting a re-transfer order and was
the cause for levelling unsubstantiated complaints against the petitioner.
The learned Counsel stated that even if there are charges against the
petitioner, it was only appropriate that the said charges are put to the
petitioner and her explanations invited and examined.
13.The learned Counsel for the petitioner also stated that when
Section 188(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, is available and
could have been invoked, taking recourse to Section 203 of the Tamil
Nadu Panchayts Act, is illegal, quite apart from invoking the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
provision without issuing notice.
14.The learned Counsel also relied on a judgment of this Court
reported in 2011 (2) CTC 381, in the case of P.Suganthi vs The District
Collector cum Inspector of Panchayat and another, wherein, a Division
Bench of this Court had very clearly stated that an order passed without
notice and without seeking explanation has to be struck down by the
Court. The learned Counsel, therefore, stated that the petitioner's right of
cheque signing power must be restored and the Writ Petition should be
allowed.
15.Mr.Veerakkathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the respondents, however, pointed out the provisions of
Section 203 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 and stated that under
emergency circumstances, the District Collector had every authority,
since he is also the Inspector of Panchayat, to withdraw the cheque
signing power of the President. In this case, the learned Additional
Advocate General pointed out the reasons given in the impugned order,
namely, that owing to the non co-operation of the petitioner herein, even
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
salary could not be paid and contractual obligations could not be satisfied
and therefore, the situation warranted that cheque signing power should
be withdrawn from the petitioner herein and handed over to a responsible
Officer, which is only an interim arrangement.
16.The learned Additional Advocate General further stated that
when further proceedings under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu
Panchayats Act, 1994, are initiated, the petitioner would certainly be put
on notice and explanation would be invited and examined. The learned
Additional Advocate General also stated that the judgment relied upon by
the learned Counsel for the petitioner dealt with a situation, where, both
Sections 203 and 205 of the Act were invoked and therefore, in that case,
it was held that notice was imperative. In the instance case, the
procedure under Section 205 of the Act had not yet been initiated and
therefore, at this stage, under Section 203 of the Act, the question of
issuing notice is never contemplated in any of the provisions.
17.The learned Additional Advocate General also pointed out that
the petitioner, though elected as a President, was only a letter pad
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
President and it was her husband, who continuously interfered with her
official duty. He also participated in the Gramasabha meeting and this
had naturally, forced other members to give a complaint against the
petitioner herein. It is an unfortunate situation, wherein, the petitioner
was not allowed to work independently by her husband. Documents, in
the nature of photographs, were also pointed out by the learned
Additional Advocate General. It was further pointed that a preliminary
enquiry had been conducted, a report had been obtained stating that there
had been misappropriation of public funds owing to the acts of
commission and omission of the petitioner herein, which necessitated her
cheque drawing powers being withdrawn to prevent further
misappropriation and also to honour existing dues to pay salary and the
bills to the existing contractors. The learned Additional Advocate
General, therefore, stated that the impugned order being only an interim
order, need not be set aside by the Court and urged that the Writ Petition
should be dismissed.
18.I have given careful consideration to the arguments advanced
and also perused the records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
19.Even before entering into a discussion on facts, the following
provisions would be material to assist in determining the issues raised:
(a)Section 188(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayts Act, 1994:
“188.Village Panchayat Fund-
(1) .....
(2)......
(3) Subject to such general control as the Village
Panchayat may exercise from time to time, all cheques for
payment from Village Panchayat Fund 10[***] shall be signed
jointly by the President and Vice President and in the absence of
the President or Vice President, as the case may be, by the Vice
President or the President and another member authorised by the
Village Panchayat at a meeting in this behalf.]”
(b)Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayts Act, 1994:
“203.Emergency powers of Collector and Inspector.- Subject to
such control as may be prescribed, the Inspector or the Collector may,
in cases of emergency, direct or provide for the execution of any work,
or the doing of any act which a Panchayat or Executive Authority or
Commissioner or Secretary is empowered to execute or do and the
immediate execution or doing of which is in his opinion necessary for
the safety of the public and may direct that the expense of executing such
work or doing such act shall be paid by the person having the custody of
the Village Panchayat Fund or the Panchayat Union (General) Fund or
the District Panchayat (General) Fund in priority to any other charges
against such Fund except charges for the service of authorised loans.”
20.The facts are simple. The facts are straight forward. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
petitioner had been elected as President of Sitharevu Village Panchayat in
the year 2019. As President, one of the privileges attached to the post
was the authority to sign cheques. That authority had been withdrawn by
the impugned order, necessitating filing the present Writ Petition. The
respondents have justified the impugned order on the ground that, an
enquiry had been conducted on the basis of a complaint against the
petitioner herein and the enquiry revealed various acts, which can be
termed as violating the norms in the handling of funds allotted to the
Panchayat.
21.I am deeply conscious that I should not venture into an
examination of the relevant merits and demerits of either the complaint or
the proceedings under which an enquiry was conducted or the outcome
of the enquiry. These are issues, which are beyond the purview of this
Court. The judicial review of the impugned order has to be limited to
determine whether the order was passed in manner known to law or
whether prejudice has been caused to the petitioner and more
importantly, whether case has been taken by the respondents to avoid
complaints of prejudice caused to the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
22.The learned Counsel for the petitioner asserted that notice
should have been issued to the petitioner before a decision had been
taken to withdraw the cheque signing authority. That contention was
based not only on the principles of natural justice, but also on the dictum
laid down, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in 2011
(2) CTC 381, in the case of P.Suganthi vs The District Collector cum
Inspector of Panchayat and another. In that case, the District Collector,
who was the respondent therein, had passed an order transferring the
cheque signing power of the appellant, who was the Panchayat President,
to the Block Development Officer, pending an enquiry under Section 205
of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. A Writ Petition was filed
questioning transfer of such authority. The Writ Petition was dismissed.
The petitioner therein took up the issue before the Division Bench on
appeal. In the appeal, the Division Bench held as follows:
“11. When the proceedings is initiated as against the
President of Village related to financial misdeeds, we are of the
view that the transferring the cheque signing power from the
Village President to Block Development Officer, the Second
Respondent is definitely a case of emergency fitting within the
provisions of Section 203 of the Act. If the Appellant is allowed to
continue to sign the cheques, it would amount to endorse the
alleged irregularities committed by the Appellant. Moreover, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
transferring of cheque signing power is only an interim
arrangement, till the completion of the proceedings initiated as
against the Appellant under Section 205 of the Act.
12. The only aspect that has to be seen whether the notice
has been issued to the Appellant before transferring the cheque
signing power to the Second Respondent, the Block
Development Officer. In the instant case, we find that the show
cause notice was issued on 31.5.2010 by the District Collector
expressing his intention to transfer the cheque signing power
from the Appellant to the Second Respondent, the Block
Development Officer. The Appellant has also sent a reply to the
said show cause notice. Under such circumstances, the case
relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Appellant S.
Udayakumar v. The District Collector-cum-Inspector of
Panchayats, 2009 Writ L.R.538, cannot be made applicable for
the reason that the facts of that case would show that no notice
was issued before passing the impugned order in transferring
the cheque signing power.
13. In fact, in the Division Bench judgment in
Pugazhendran, President, Brammapnram, Village Panchayat v.
B.G. Balu and others, 2005 (1) CTC 545 (DB) : 2005 (1) LW
506, considered this issue. In that case, since show cause notice
was not issued before passing the impugned order in
transferring the cheque signing power, the order was quashed.
The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:
“29. In the present case a perusal of the order of the
District Collector, Vellore (Inspector of Panchayats, Vellore)
dated 7.11.2002 cancelling the power of the Vice President to
sign the panchayat’s cheques as joint signatory, shows that the
District Collector has merely acted on the recommendation of
the Block Development Officer, Katpadi Panchayat Union, and
he has not applied his mind independently to the facts of the
case, and he has not come to any independent conclusion that
the refusal to sign cheques by the Vice President was mala fide or
for ulterior motives. The District Collector, Vellore without
issuing notice to the Petitioner appears to have mechanically
accepted the report of the Block Development Officer, Katpadi
Panchayat Union, which in our opinion was not proper.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
30. In paragraph-4 of the Petitioner’s Affidavit it has been
specifically alleged that no notice was given by the District
Collector before passing the impugned order, and this allegation
has not been denied by the Collector in his Counter Affidavit. In
our opinion, the District Collector’s order dated 1.11.2002 has
Civil consequences, and hence it was incumbent on him to give a
show cause notice to the Petitioner before passing it, which was
not done. Hence, in our opinion, there was violation of the
Principles of Natural Justice, and the impugned order becomes
illegal.
31.The District Collector, Vellore should have given a
show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing to the Vice
President (which need not have been a personal hearing as
already stated above) and after considering the explanation and
other materials submitted by the Vice President, he should have
applied his mind independently and in a fair and impartial
manner, and should have recorded his own reasons in the order
he passed. Since that does not appear to have been done in the
order of the District Collector, Vellore dated 7.11.2002, in our
opinion, the said order was rightly quashed. The matter is
remanded to the District Collector, Vellore to pass a fresh order
after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Vice President and
President of the Panchayat, and others concerned, and after
recording his reasons. This should be done very expeditiously by
the District Collector, Vellore.”
14. The principle laid down in the judgment would spell
out a clear meaning that after affording an opportunity by
issuing show cause notice to the Village President the transfer
of cheque signing power is made, no infirmity could be found.
In the instant case, after getting explanation from the Appellant
by issuing show cause notice, the First Respondent passed by the
impugned order and we do not find any infirmity in the order
passed by the First Respondent. Hence, we are not inclined to
make any interference in the order passed by the learned Single
Judge.” (Emphasis supplied).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
23.In effect, the dictum laid down was that, when proceeding had
been initiated against the President of a Village Panchayat relating to
financial misdeeds and such proceeding had been initiated under Section
205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, then, pending result or
outcome of such proceedings, under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu
Panchayats Act, 1994, the District Collect, who incidentally was also the
Inspector of Panchayas, can invoke the provision under Section 203 of
the Act and term it as a case of emergency and transfer the cheque
signing power. This was an interim arrangement till the completion of
the proceeding under Section 205 of the Act.
24.In the said judgment, it was also held that show cause notice
should be issued and in that particular case, the Division Bench has
observed that the appellant therein was issued with a show cause notice
and had also issued a reply to the show cause notice. It was, therefore,
held that the transfer of cheque signing power was valid and the Division
Bench did not interfere with the said order.
25.Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned Counsel for the petitioner,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
however, pointed out the contra-dictum, which naturally follows, namely,
that if the notice had not been issued prior to the withdrawal of cheque
signing power, then, the order directing withdrawal of cheque signing
should be interfered with by the Court. That was emphasised in
Pugazhendran, President, Brammapnram, Village Panchayat v. B.G. Balu
and others reported in 2005 (1) CTC 544 (DB), referred to by the Division
Bench in the judgment cited supra.
26.There also precedents wherein, it had been held that the
principle of natural justice cannot be stretched to extreme limits when
issue of notice would be an empty formality.
27.In (2000) 7 SCC 529, Aligarh Muslim University and Others
Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to
consider the effect of “ useless formality” - a theory, which is an
exemption to the principles of natural justice.
“21.As pointed recently in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of
India (1999 (6) SCC 237), there can be certain situations in
which an order passed in violation of natural justice need not be
set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For
example where no prejudice is caused to the person concerned,
interference under Article 226 is not necessary. Similarly, if the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
quashing of the order which is in breach of natural justice is
likely to result in revival of another order which is in itself illegal
as in Gadde Venkateswara Rao vs. Government of Andhra
Pradesh [1966 (2) SCR 172 = AIR 1966 SC 828], it is not
necessary to quash the order merely because of violation of
principles of natural justice.
22.In M.C.Mehta {1999} 6 SCC 237 it was pointed out
that at one time, it was held in Ridge vs. Baldwin ( 1964 AC 40)
that breach of principles of natural justice was in itself treated as
prejudice and that no other 'defacto' prejudice needed to be
proved. But, since then the rigour of the rule has been relaxed not
only in England but also in our country. In S.L. Kapoor Vs.
Jagmohan ( 1980 (4) SCC 379), Chinnappa Reddy, J. followed
Ridge vs. Baldwin and set aside the order of supersession of the
New Delhi Metropolitan Committee rejecting the argument that
there was no prejudice though notice was not given. The
proceedings were quashed on the ground of violation of
principles of natural justice. But even in that case certain
exceptions were laid down to which we shall presently refer.
23.Chinnappa Reddy, J. in S.L.Kapoor's case [(1980) 4
SCC 379], laid two exceptions (at p.395) namely, " if upon
admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion was possible",
then in such a case, the principle that breach of natural justice
was in itself prejudice, would not apply. In other words if no
other conclusion was possible on admitted or indisputable facts,
it is not necessary to quash the order which was passed in
violation of natural justice. Of course, this being an exception,
great care must be taken in applying this exception.
24.The principle that in addition to breach of natural
justice, prejudice must also be proved has been developed in
several cases. In K.L.Tripathi Vs. State Bank of India ( 1984(1)
SCC 43), Sabyasachi Mukherji, J. (as he then was) also laid
down the principle that not mere violation of natural justice but
de facto prejudice (other than non-issue of notice) had to be
proved. It was observed: quoting Wade Administrative Law, (5th
Ed.PP.472-475) as follows: ( para 31)
"....it is not possible to lay down rigid rules as to when
principles of natural justice are to apply, nor as their scope and
extent ....There must have been some real prejudice to the
complainant; there is no such thing as a merely technical
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
infringement of natural justice. The requirements of natural
justice must depend on the facts and circumstances of the case,
the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is
acting, the subject matter to be dealt with and so forth".
Since then, this Court has consistently applied the
principle of prejudice in several cases. The above ruling and
various other rulings taking the same view have been
exhaustively referred to in State Bank of Patiala Vs. S.K. Sharma
( 1996(3) SCC 364). In that case, the principle of 'prejudice' has
been further elaborated. The same principle has been reiterated
again in Rajendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. ( 1996(5) SCC 460).
25.The 'useless formality' theory, it must be noted, is an
exception. Apart from the class of cases of "admitted or
indisputable facts leading only to one conclusion" referred to
above,- there has been considerable debate of the application of
that theory in other cases. The divergent views expressed in
regard to this theory have been elaborately considered by this
Court in M.C. Mehta referred to above. This Court surveyed the
views expressed in various judgments in England by Lord Reid,
Lord Wilberforce, Lord Woolf, Lord Bingham, Megarry, J. and
Straughton L.J. etc. in various cases and also views expressed by
leading writers like Profs. Garner, Craig, De. Smith, Wade, D.H.
Clark etc. Some of them have said that orders passed in violation
must always be quashed for otherwise the Court will be
prejudging the issue. Some others have said, that there is no such
absolute rule and prejudice must be shown. Yet, some others have
applied via-media rules. We do not think it necessary, in this case
to go deeper into these issues. In the ultimate analysis, it may
depend on the facts of a particular case.”
28.The same position had been reiterated in 2006 (8) SCC 647
[Punjab National Bank and Others]:
“In an industrial dispute referred to by the Central
Government which has an all-India implication, individual
workman cannot be made parties to a reference. All of them
are not expected to be heard. The Unions representing them
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
were impleaded as parties. They were heard. Not only the
said Unions were heard before the High Court, as noticed
hereinbefore from a part of the judgment of the High Court,
they had preferred appeals before this Court, Their
contentions had been noticed by this Court. As the award
was made in presence of the Unions, in our opinion, the
contention of Respondents that the award was not binding
on them cannot be accepted. The principles of natural
justice were also not required to be complied with as the
same would have been an empty formality. The court will
not insist on compliance of the principles of natural justice
in view of the binding nature of the award. Their
application would be limited to a situation where the factual
position or legal implication arising thereunder is disputed
and not where it is not in dispute or cannot be disputed. If
only one conclusion is possible, a writ would not issue only
because there was a violation of the principles of natural
justice.”
29.A Division Bench of this Court in a Judgement reported in
2006 4 LLN 358 [Dr.C.Chendroyaperumal Vs. National Institute of
Port Management] had also expressed their views on this aspect.
“9. Coming to the legal aspects canvassed by the learned
counsel for the appellant, it is seen that they revolve around
violation of the principles of natural justice. Even at the outset,
we are not impressed with the said argument, since in our
opinion, “Principles of natural justice is for thoroughbred horses
and not wild horses.” Wild horses understand only the language
of the whip and hence there is no use trying to tame them with
persuasion. The principles of natural justice themselves have
traversed a long way from the stage at which they were treated as
a “tharaka manthra” or panacea for all diseases, to the present
stage where the Courts have started looking at the credentials of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
the person using them as a shield or sword and accepting the fact
that they are not indispensable.”
30.In the instance case, it has to be therefore, examined whether
issuance of show cause notice would be an useless formality or whether
it was essential to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner herein.
31.Reliance placed under Section 188(3) of the Tamil Nadu
Panchayats Act, by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, cannot be
pressed into service in the instant case, since it is not the case of either
the petitioner herein or the respondents that the petitioner was absent or
had refused to sign the cheques, therefore, necessitating invoking Section
188(3) of the Act.
32.Reference made to Section 219 of the Act, which deals with
revision, may also not come into play, since that provision is a fall out of
an authorisation primarily under Section 218 of the Act. In the instant
case, it is pertinent point out that proceeding under Section 205 of the
Act had not been initiated against the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
33.Section 205 of the Act contemplates removal of the President
and naturally, when such a proceedings, which might result in the
removal of a President of the Panchayat had been initiated, then, it is
only natural that pending such proceedings, the President is divested with
the power to take any policy decision or to involve the President indulge
in further acts relating to the funds of the Village Panchayt. It would
appropriate that the financial aspects are deal with another independent
officer and the President, during the course of such enquiry under
Section 205 of the Act, should not be in a position to further involve
himself/herself in any financial transaction.
34.In this case, the impugned order does not refer to initiation of
proceeding under Section 205 of the Act. On the other hand, it refers to a
complaint and an enquiry by the Block Development Officer/second
respondent. When the impugned order speaks about a complaint and an
enquiry, then, naturally the principles of natural justice will have to be
applied. It cannot be termed as an useless formality. It is essential that
the person, against whom a complaint had been levied or enquiry is
conducted, is put on notice about such complaint and views are asked
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
and thereafter, an the enquiry is conducted. Thus, even though the
principles of natural justice had been limited in various cases cited
above, in the instant case, when a drastic step is taken to withdraw the
cheque signing authority, based on a complaint, then such complaint
should have been put to the petitioner herein and her explanation should
have been obtained. Even if an enquiry had been directed to find out
whether the averments in the complaint are prima facie true in nature,
then the result of the enquiry should have been put to the petitioner
herein and her opinion sought.
35.Neither of these had been done by the first respondent. On the
other hand, quite disturbingly, the first respondent had stated that the
enquiry report can be considered as, “epjpapog;ghfTk; ifahlyhfTk;
fUjg;gLfpwJ.”
36.This conclusion can never and should never have been reached
by any authority without giving notice to the person, against whom such
a imputation is cast. The first respondent had no authority to come to
such a conclusion on the basis of an enquiry, which had been done
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
without notice. The result or conclusion of the enquiry should have been
put to the petitioner and on the basis of such explanation, an opinion can
be formed by the first respondent.
37.More over, a reading of Section 203 of the Act also shows that
rules had been framed with respect to exercise of power under Section
203 of the Act, namely, The Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Control of the
Emergency Powers of Collector of Inspector) Rules, 2001, vide
G.O.Ms.No.148, Rural Development (C-4), dated 31.05.2001.
38.Rule 3 of The Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Control of the
Emergency Powers of Collector of Inspector) Rules, 2001, reads as
follows:
“3.Intimation after exercise of emergency powers-
Collector or the Inspector, shall, after exercise of the powers
conferred by Section 203 of the Act, be reported forthwith to the
Director of Rural Development with the reasons in full, for the
exercise of such powers and a copy of the report shall, at the
same time, be sent to the Panchayat for information.”
39.In the counter, it had only been stated that power had been
withdrawn by initiating proceeding under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
Panchayats Act. It is indicated that the proceeding had not yet been
initiated under Section 205 of the Act. It had not been stated whether
Rule 3 of The Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Control of the Emergency
Powers of Collector of Inspector) Rules, 2001, has been complied with
by the first respondent. It is, thus, clear that the first respondent had
acted without adhering to any of the principles guiding natural justice.
40.The petitioner should have been put on notice or should have
been marked with a copy of the complaint. Before initiating enquiry of
the complaint, the petitioner's explanation should have been received.
The enquiry under the complaint should have conducted with the
participation of the petitioner. Her application should have been
received. Only thereafter, could any decision be taken. None of the steps
contemplated as fair and just have been taken by the first respondent.
The impugned order therefore suffers. Adherence to principles of natural
justice cannot be brushed away as an useless formality. They are part of
the golden principles, which guides the first respondent, when he/she
deals with an errant official. There is an obligation to put the official on
notice and thereafter, initiate any action. Violation of that principle,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
results in quashing any action initiated. In this case, the impugned order
is, therefore, interfered with and set aside.
41.The petitioner had given a representation, on 01.11.2021. The
respondents may examine the same and proceed further in accordance
with procedure established by law and in manner recognised by law.
42.With the said observations, this Writ Petition is allowed. The
impugned order is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index :Yes / No 29.11.2021
Internet :Yes
cmr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
To
1.The District Collector/Inspector of Panchayats,
Office of the District Collector,
Dindigul, Dindigul District.
2.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat),
Athur Union Office, Dindigul District.
3.The Zonal Deputy Block Development Officer,
Athur Union Office, Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
cmr
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.20082 of 2021
29.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
