Madras High Court
K.Krishnamoorthy vs The District Collector on 31 August, 2023
W.P.(MD).No.17946 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 31.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.P.(MD).No.17946 of 2020
K.Krishnamoorthy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
2.The Assistant Director (Panchayat),
Thoothukudi District.
3.The Block Development Officer/
Special Officer,
Srivaikundam,
Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in his
proceedings in Thee3778/2018, dated 15.03.2018, quash the same as illegal and
consequently directing the 3rd respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service
with all attendant and monetary benefits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P.(MD).No.17946 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.Mohan Gandhi
For R1 & R2 : Mr.N.Muthuvijayan
Special Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.V.Nirmal Kumar
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining
to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings in
Thee3778/2018, dated 15.03.2018, quash the same as illegal and consequently
directing the 3rd respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all
attendant and monetary benefits.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Secretary in
Maramangalam Village in the year 1996. Until 26.02.2018, the petitioner
continued his service without any hindrance. While so, due to his health
condition, he took medical leave from 27.02.2018. In the meanwhile, on
15.03.2018, the order of termination came to be passed by the 3rd respondent
vide proceedings bearing No.Thee3778/2018. Assailing the same, this writ
petition came to be filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.17946 of 2020
3. The learned Special Government Pleader has filed a counter and
submitted that the petitioner has absented himself continuously from
01.10.2017 to 25.10.2017, 26.10.2017 to 23.11.2017, 01.02.2018 to 26.02.2018
and for 35 days from 27.02.2018 causing grave concern to the administration of
Village Panchayat. That apart, several delinquencies came to be identified as
against the petitioner including irregularities in releasing the payments to the
beneficiaries of Indira Awaas Housing Scheme for the year 2015-16 and
2016-17. The petitioner has also misappropriated a sum of Rs.91,000/-, which
came to light on the audit conducted by the Deputy Block Development Officer
on 05.02.2018. The petitioner has also deducted his salary twice from Account
Nos.1 as well as 7 by contriving the same from the Panchayat funds. Hence, in
the interest of public, the petitioner was relieved from the post vide impugned
proceedings, dated 15.03.2018 and the same has been passed in accordance
with Sections 84 (b) and 106 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. With no option
available, pending framing of regular charges against the petitioner, he was
relieved from the post of Panchayat Secretary in Maramangalam Village.
Hence, it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned proceedings, by which
the petitioner has been relieved from service.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.17946 of 2020
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this
Court reported in 2009 (5) MLJ 107 (K.Devaki Vs. Superintendent, Central
Prison), dated 09.06.2009 and the relevant portion of which is extracted
hereunder:
“10. From the above rulings of the Supreme Court, it will be
clear that there is no escape for the respondents to dispense with an
enquiry before ordering removal of service of a Government
servant. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the
petitioner's husband had died on 28.03.1996 and he was not served
personally even the so called order of desertion. No charge memo
was framed against him and no enquiry was also held against him
in terms of Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary
and Appeal) Rules, while the petitioner's husband was alive. It was
after his death, the wife was making representation for getting
pension and other terminal benefits.
11.Even in cases where members of the police force were
ordered to be removed for long absence, it was preceded by a
regular enquiry. It was only when such an enquiry was held and
punishment of removal from service was sought to be made, the
Supreme Court had declined to interfere with such punishment.”
5. He further relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2009 (5)
MLJ 113 (N.Jayaseelan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.17946 of 2020
Government, Department of Tamil Development and Culture) and the relevant
portion of which is extracted hereunder:
“7. In the present case, admittedly there was a policy by the
State to regularize the teacher on contract basis and the
petitioner but for his termination would have been considered for
granting such benefit. In the present case, as admitted in the
reply affidavit, the termination is for a misconduct and the
petitioner was not heard before the impugned order came to be
passed. Though the so-called contract clause was invoked in
passing the impugned order of termination, the contents of the
reply affidavit, clearly discloses that it was done for the alleged
misconduct and for which, no enquiry was held.
8.Therefore, in the light of the above, the impugned order
deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition stands
allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. But, it is
open to the respondents to initiate fresh action if necessary after
complying with the principles of natural justice.”
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
available on record.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that the 3rd respondent has fairly
conceded in Paragraph No.5 of the counter affidavit that the order of relieving
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.17946 of 2020
the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Secretary has been made pending
framing of regular charges against him. However, any such power to punish the
employee cannot be exercised without giving any opportunity of hearing and
without seeking an explanation of the delinquent employee. In failure to give
opportunity to the delinquent employee and in failure to conduct appropriate
departmental enquiry giving due opportunity would amount to violation of
principles of natural justice. It is a clear case of violation of principles of
natural justice against the petitioner by the 3rd respondent.
8. In view of the same, this Court hereby quashes the impugned
proceedings, dated 15.03.2018 as per se illegal and consequently, remand back
the matter to the file of the 3rd respondent, directing the 3rd respondent to
reinstate the petitioner in service and thereafter, issue appropriate charge
memo, for which, the petitioner shall submit an appropriate explanation. An
Enquiry Officer may also be appointed, who will conduct the enquiry after
affording due opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of
two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.17946 of 2020
9. With the above said observations, this Writ Petition stands disposed
of. No costs.
31.08.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
gbg
To
1.The District Collector,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
2.The Assistant Director (Panchayat),
Thoothukudi District.
3.The Block Development Officer/
Special Officer,
Srivaikundam,
Thoothukudi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.17946 of 2020
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
gbg
W.P.(MD).No.17946 of 2020
31.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
