Madras High Court
The President vs Karuppaiah on 23 March, 2022
W.A(MD)Nos.639 to 641 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.A(MD)Nos.639 to 641 of 2011
W.A(MD)No.639 of 2011
The President,
Eswaran Kovil Panchayat,
Annavasal Panchayat Union,
Pudukkottai District. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Karuppaiah
2.The Block Development Officer,
(Village Panchayat),
Annavasal Panchayat Union,
Pudukkottai District. ...Respondents
W.A(MD)No.640 of 2011
Eswaran Kovil Panchayat,
rep. by its President,
Annavasal Panchayat Union,
Pudukkottai District. ... Appellant
Vs.
Karuppaiah ...Respondent
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.639 to 641 of 2011
W.A(MD)No.641 of 2011
1.The President,
Eswaran Kovil Panchayat,
Annavasal Panchayat Union,
Pudukkottai District.
2.C.Duraisamy,
The President,
Eswaran Kovil Panchayat,
Annavasal Panchayat Union,
Pudukkottai District. ... Appellants
Vs.
Karuppaiah ...Respondent
COMMON PRAYER : Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent praying this Court to set aside the order passed by this
Court in W.P(MD)Nos.5177 of 2007, 10696 of 2009 and 7361 of 2007,
dated 07.04.2011, respectively.
In all Writ Appeals
For Appellant in W.A.(MD) Nos.639 & 640 of 2011
and Appellants in W.A.(MD) No.641 of 2011 : Mr.P.Ganapathy
Subramanian
For 1st Respondent in W.A.(MD) No.639 of 2011
and Respondent in W.A.(MD) Nos.640 & 641 of 2011 : Mr.S.Anwar
Sameem,
For 2nd Respondent in W.A.(MD) No.639 of 2011 : Mr.V.Nirmal Kumar,
Government Advocate
2/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.639 to 641 of 2011
COMMON JUDGMENT
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AND
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
These three Writ Appeals arise out of W.P(MD)Nos.5177 of
2007, 10696 of 2009 and 7361 of 2007, dated 07.04.2011, respectively.
2. The prayers in the writ petitions are as follows :
PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.5177 of 2007: Writ
petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus,
directing the second respondent to assign work to
the petitioner and also to pay the salary dues payable
to the petitioner from January 2007 in accordance
with law.
PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.7361 of 2007: Writ
petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the
impugned order of suspension issued by the first
respondent in Voo.Ma.A.Aanai No.1 of 2007 dated
19.06.2007 and quash the same and consequently
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.639 to 641 of 2011
reinstating the petitioner with continuity of service
with all consequential benefits.
PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.10696 of 2009: Writ
petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the
impugned order of the respondent dated 13.10.2009
and quash the same and consequently reinstating the
petitioner with continuity of service with all
consequential benefits.
3. The petitioner joined the service as a Part-Time Clerk on
06.01.1997 with Eswaran Kovil Panchayat, Annavasal Panchayat Union,
Pudukottai District. On 27.12.2006, he was brought on the time scale of
pay. Though he was brought on the time scale of pay, according to the
petitioner, he was not assigned with any work after January 2007 and
salary was also stopped. On 28.03.2007, the President of Eswaran Kovil
Panchayat and some Officials of the Panchayat took away the records
forcibly from the petitioner. A show-cause notice was issued by the
Block Development Officer on 08.05.2007 stating that the petitioner was
negligent in discharging the duty and he was not attending Panchayat
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.639 to 641 of 2011
Union meetings. A reply was sent by the petitioner on 16.05.2007
pointing out that the records have been taken away forcibly on
28.03.2007. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed the first writ
petition in W.P.(MD) No.5177 of 2007 on 08.06.2007 seeking
assignment of work and also for salary.
4. Subsequently, the President of the Eswaran Kovil
Panchayat, by order, dated 19.06.2007 placed the petitioner under
suspension. The said suspension order was challenged in W.P(MD)
No.7361 of 2007. There was an order of stay of suspension on
25.06.2008. On 10.10.2007, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner
making various allegations against him. The petitioner by his letter,
dated 22.10.2007 sought for time for submitting the explanation and also
sought for documents. Since he was not permitted to work, despite the
suspension order having been stayed, the petitioner had launched
contempt proceedings in Cont.P(MD) No.410 of 2008. Subsequently, a
show-cause notice was sent by the President of Eswaran Kovil Panchayat
on 07.10.2009 seeking the petitioner's explanation and within six days
i.e., on 13.10.2009, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The order
of dismissal was challenged in W.P.(MD) No.10696 of 2009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.639 to 641 of 2011
5. All the above three writ petitions and the contempt
petition were taken up together.
6. The order of dismissal from service was set aside mainly
on the ground that there was no enquiry and the petitioner was not
afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend the charges levelled against
him. This Court also found that the order of suspension was passed with
a malafide intention. The Writ Court also recorded a finding that the
dismissal from service was actuated by malafides because the petitioner
had filed a contempt petition before this Court.
7. On the above findings, all the three Writ Petitions were
allowed with cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only). The
Contempt Petition was closed, accepting the unconditional apology
tendered by the President of the Eswaran Kovil Panchayat.
8. We have heard Mr.P.Ganapathy Subramanian, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant-Panchayat, Mr.S.Anwar Sameem,
learned counsel appearing for the first respondent in W.A.(MD) No.639
of 2021, respondent in W.A.(MD) Nos.640 & 641 of 2011 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.639 to 641 of 2011
Mr.V.Nirmal Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
second respondent in W.A.(MD) No.639 of 2021.
9. Mr.P.Ganapathy Subramanian, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant-Panchayat would vehemently contend that the order of
dismissal was passed because the petitioner did not submit an
explanation to the show-cause notice. According to him, there was an
audit objection for misappropriation of a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand only) and the petitioner cannot go scot-free of having
mis-appropriated the money to the Panchayat
10. Contending contra, Mr.Anwar Sameem, learned counsel
appearing for the first respondent in W.A.(MD) No.639 of 2011 and
respondent in W.A.(MD) Nos.640 & 641 of 2011 would submit that the
entire proceedings are vitiated because of malafides. According to the
learned counsel, it could be seen from the narration of events itself that
the first respondent has deliberately prevented the petitioner from
working, despite the order of suspension having been stayed by this
Court. Upon initiation of contempt and upon receipt of notice in the
contempt proceedings, the appellant herein had issued a show-cause
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.639 to 641 of 2011
notice and within 10 days, followed it up with a dismissal order. The
fundamental requirement of law that a person shall be heard before he is
inflicted with any punishment, has been breached in the case on hand.
11. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties.
12. We are unable to countenance the submissions of the
learned counsel for the appellant. The facts narrated above justify the
contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent-employee.
While he was working in the Office of the Panchayat as a Clerk, the
President had taken away the office records from him. Thereafter, a
show-cause notice was issued to him. He had sought for the documents.
Without furnishing the documents, he was kept under suspension. The
order of suspension was stayed by this Court. Despite an order of stay in
force, he was not allowed to work. He launched a contempt proceedings.
Thereafter, in order to get over the contempt, the appellant had adopted
the route of dismissal from service.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.639 to 641 of 2011
13. We find considerable justification in the contention of
the learned counsel for the first respondent that the entire proceedings are
vitiated due to malafides and lack of opportunity to the petitioner.
14. We, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the
order of the Writ Court. These three Writ Appeals fail and accordingly,
the same are dismissed. No costs.
15. It is now stated that the order of suspension has been
revoked, the order of reinstatement has been implemented and the first
respondent/writ petitioner is now working in a different Panchayat.
These statements are placed on record. In view of the above, the cost
imposed by the Writ Court is set aside.
[R.S.M, J.] & [N.S.K., J.]
23.03.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
rm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.639 to 641 of 2011
To
1.The Block Development Officer,
(Village Panchayat),
Annavasal Panchayat Union,
Pudukkottai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.639 to 641 of 2011
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AND
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
rm
COMMON JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN
W.A(MD)Nos.639 to 641 of 2011
23.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
