Madras High Court
D.Soundhara Rajan vs The Inspector Of ... on 5 June, 2023
W.P.No.3430 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.06.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.Nos.15142 and 15773 of 2023
and WMP Nos.14635 and 15217 of 2023
W.P.No.15142/2023
D.Soundhara Rajan
President
Bodipatti Village Panchayat
Udumalaipettai Panchayat Union
Tiruppur District. ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Inspector of Panchayat/District Collector
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
2.The Assistant Director of Panchayats (V.P)
Collectorate Campus, Tiruppur.
3.The Block Development Officer (V.P)
Udumalaipettai Panchayat Union
Tiruppur District.
4.The Tahsildar
Udumalaipettai Taluk
Tiruppur District. .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for all the records pertaining to the
impugned notice issued by the 1st respondent vide Na.Ka.No.530/2022/A1 dated 26.04.2023
and to quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 1st
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3430 of 2023
respondent to drop the removal proceedings initiated under Section 205 of Tamil nadu
Panchayats Act, 1994.
For Petitioner Mr.R.Venkatraman
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Balamurugan
For Respondents Mr.S.Arumugam
Government Advocate
W.P.No.15773/2023
D.Soundhara Rajan
President
Bodipatti Village Panchayat
Udumalaipettai Panchayat Union
Tiruppur District. ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The State of Tamilnadu
Rep.by the Principal Secretary to Government
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department
Fort St.George, Secretariat
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Inspector of Panchayat/District Collector
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
3.The Assistant Director of Panchayats (V.P)
Collectorate Campus, Tiruppur.
4.The Assistant Director of Rural Development (Audit)
Collectorate Campus, Tiruppur.
5.The Block Development Officer (V.P)
Udumalaipettai Panchayat Union
Tiruppur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3430 of 2023
6.The Tahsildar
Udumalaipettai Taluk
Tiruppur District. .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the
issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for all the records pertaining to the impugned order
passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.530/2022/m 1 dated 4.5.2023 which served to the
petitioner on 12.05.2023 and consequential gazette notification No.VI(2)/8(a)/2023 dated
12.5.2023 effect by 2nd respondent which served to the petitioner on 16.5.2023 and quash
the same as illegal and unconstitutional.
For Petitioner Mr.R.Venkatraman
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Balamurugan
For Respondents Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru
Special Government Pleader
for R1 to R4 and R6
Mr.S.Rajesh
Government Advocate
for R5
COMMON ORDER
The petitioner is the President of Bodipatti Village Panchayat. The petitioner has
challenged the impugned notice issued by the 1st respondent through proceedings dated
26.04.2023, initiated u/s.205 of the Panchayats Act, 1994 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')
in WP.No.15142 of 2023. The second writ petition has been filed in WP.No.15773 of 2023,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3430 of 2023
challenging the impugned proceedings of the District Collector (2nd respondent), dated
04.05.2023, removing the petitioner from the Post of President of the Village Panchayat in
exercising powers u/s 205(11) of the Act.
2.The case of the petitioner is that he was elected as the President of the Village
Panchayat during December 2020. It is stated that there are totally 12 wards which comes
under the above said Village Panchayat. The District Collector issued a show cause notice
dated 06.01.2023 u/s 205(1) of the Act by levelling 16 charges against the petitioner. The
petitioner gave an explanation dated 31.01.2023 for the show cause notice and denied all
the charges. The District Collector called for further explanation from the petitioner and the
petitioner also gave his further explanation dated 03.03.2023 and explained the various
expenditures that were incurred by the Panchayat during the relevant point of time and
supporting materials were also sent along with the reply.
3.The petitioner was served with the impugned notice dated 26.04.2023 by the District
Collector calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why he should not be removed from the
post of President of the Village Panchayat. This notice was put to challenge in WP.No.15142
of 2023 and this writ petition was filed on 09.05.2023. By the time this writ petition was
filed, the impugned order dated 04.05.2023, came to be passed by the District Collector
removing the petitioner from the post of President of the Village Panchayat. This order was
served on the petitioner on 12.05.2023 and the subsequent writ petition in WP.No.15773 of
2023, came to be filed on 18.5.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3430 of 2023
4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents.
5.The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner apart from
arguing the case on merits, also pointed out to the non-compliance of the mandatory
procedure as stipulated u/s 205 of the Act. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the
entire proceedings of the District Collector was done in a haste. To substantiate the said
submission, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the District Collector did not record
any reasons in writing for arriving at the conclusion and if in case any such reasons were
recorded, it was not furnished to the petitioner. That apart, the learned Senior Counsel also
pointed out to the fact that the 6th respondent did not give 7 clear days notice before
convening the meeting of the Panchayat as mandated u/s 205(4) of the Act. According to
the learned Senior Counsel, the 4th respondent had issued notice dated 17.04.2023 and the
members were served with notice only on 18.04.2023 and whereas the meeting was held on
24.04.2023.
6.The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out to the fact that the District Collector
had pointed out to the defective inspection report as per the special audit which became the
basis for the initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner and those materials were
never furnished to the petitioner and hence, the petitioner was not able to effectively give
his explanation. That apart, it was further pointed out that the majority of the members had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3430 of 2023
voted in favour of the petitioner and they were not in favour of removing the petitioner from
the post of President and inspite of the same, the District Collector had come to a different
conclusion and the reason for arriving at such a conclusion is also not pointed out in the
impugned proceedings dated 04.05.2023. Thus, the learned Senior Counsel pointed out all
these procedural irregularities and submitted that the impugned proceedings of the District
Collector dated 04.05.2023, is liable to be interfered by this Court on these grounds alone.
7.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the
respondents 1 to 4 and 6 submitted that the present case involves large scale
misappropriation committed by the petitioner in his capacity as the Village Panchayat
President. The learned Special Government Pleader by pointing out to the impugned
proceedings dated 04.05.2023, submitted that the District Collector had listed various facts
leading to the misappropriation and since the explanation given by the petitioner was not
satisfactory, the District Collector had arrived at a correct conclusion u/s 205(11) of the Act.
The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the present writ petition is not
maintainable since there is an alternative remedy of appeal to the Government and the
petitioner has not chosen to file any appeal before the Government. In view of the same,
the learned Special Government Pleader sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.
8.The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Block Development
Officer adopted the submissions of the learned Special Government Pleader and submitted
that the impugned proceedings of the District Collector does not suffer from any illegality.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3430 of 2023
9.The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in reply to the
above submissions pointed out to the judgment of the Full Bench in District Collector and
Inspector of District Panchayat .v. Devi Parasuraman reported in 2009 4 CTC 609 and
submitted that the test that has been applied by the Full Bench has not been complied with
in the present case. The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the judgment of the
Division Bench in K.Ramalingam .v. The Secretary to Government and Others reported in
2011 2 CTC 134, to substantiate his submission that the excess expenditure incurred by the
President will not attract the provisions of 205(1) of the Act.
10.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the
materials available on record.
11.It is not necessary for this Court to go into the merits of the case and deal with the
issue as to whether there was any justification for the petitioner to incur additional
expenditure that was pointed out by the District Collector and it will suffice to focus on the
procedural irregularities that were pointed out to the Court and see if the impugned
proceedings of the District Collector suffers from those irregularities warranting the
interference of this Court.
12.Before going into the irregularities pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner, it will be beneficial to take note of the Full Bench judgment of this Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3430 of 2023
referred supra. For proper appreciation, the relevant portion of the Full Bench judgment is
extracted hereunder:
“17.In the light of the discussions made above, we summarise our
views as follows:
(i) An act of the Inspector under Section 205 is quasi-judicial in nature;
(ii) If the Inspector is satisfied with the explanation submitted by the
President under Section 205, he is required to record his satisfaction for
dropping the proceeding; and
(iii) If the Inspector differs with the views expressed by the Village
Panchayat and decides to remove the President or to drop the proceeding
against the President, he is not only required to record the reasons for
differing with the views of the Village Panchayat, but before taking any
decision to remove the President, the Inspector is also required to provide
further notice to the President intimating the reasons for difference and can
issue notification only on consideration of cause, if any, shown by the
President.”
13.It is clear from the above that the nature of power that is exercised by the
Inspector of Panchayat u/s 205 of the Act is quasi-judicial in nature. The District Collector
has to keep in mind the fact that the removal of an elected representative involves serious
consequences and it cannot be treated akin to removal of a Government employee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3430 of 2023
Resorting to the removal of the elected President must take place only in extreme cases and
such removal cannot happen at the fall of the hat. This is the reason why Section 205 of the
Act prescribes mandatory procedure to be followed to ensure that the removal is done in a
proper manner. If there is violation of any of the mandatory procedure prescribed under the
Act, that itself will become a ground for interfering with the removal and in such a scenario,
there will be no requirement for the Court even to go into the merits of the case.
14.In the instant case, the sum and substance of the allegation against the petitioner
is that he had incurred additional expenditure and this seems to have been pointed out in
the special audit report. The District Collector had placed reliance upon the special audit
report and unfortunately a copy of the same has not been furnished to the petitioner.
Therefore, to that extent, the petitioner was denied an opportunity to make an effective
explanation. That apart, the very convening of the meeting by the Tahsildar to ascertain the
views of the Panchayat members, suffers from illegality. Section 205(4) of the Act makes it
mandatory to give 7 clear days notice. In the instant case, the notice was given to the
members on 18.04.2023 and whereas the meeting was conducted on 24.04.2023 and the
same is in violation of the mandate u/s 205(4) of the Act.
15.Even when the meeting was convened, out of the 12 ward members, except 2, all
the other 10 members were not in favour of the removal of the petitioner from his post as
the President of the Panchayat. After such a result, if at all, the District Collector differs with
the views expressed by the Village Panchayat and he decides to remove the petitioner from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3430 of 2023
his post as the President of the Village Panchayat, the District Collector is expected to record
the reasons for differing with the views of the Village Panchayat and is mandated to provide
further notice to the petitioner intimating the reasons for his decision and only after receiving
the explanation of the petitioner, the District Collector can proceed further to come to a final
conclusion. This mandate prescribed by the Full Bench in the judgment referred supra has
not been followed by the District Collector.
16.The above infractions pointed out clearly vitiates the proceedings of the District
Collector dated 04.05.2023 and the same is liable to be interfered by this Court. Insofar as
the writ petition challenging the impugned notice dated 26.04.2023 is concerned,
WP.No.15142 of 2023 has become infructuous since the subsequent order has been passed
and it has been made a subject matter of challenge in WP.No.15773 of 2023.
17.In the light of the above discussion, this Court has absolutely no hesitation to
interfere with the impugned proceedings of the Inspector of Panchayat/District Collector,
Tiruppur District dated 04.05.2023 and the consequential Gazette notification dated
12.5.2023 and the same is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the file of the
Inspector of Panchayat/District Collector, Tiruppur District and this Court expects the District
Collector to strictly follow with the procedure as contemplated u/s 205 of the Act and also
the dictum of the Full Bench in Devi Parasuraman case referred supra and thereafter, come
to a conclusion strictly in accordance with law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3430 of 2023
18.In the result, WP.No.15142 of 2023 is closed and WP.No.15773 of 2023 is allowed
in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
05.06.2023
KP
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
To
1.The State of Tamilnadu
Rep.by the Principal Secretary to Government
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department
Fort St.George, Secretariat
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Inspector of Panchayat/District Collector
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
3.The Assistant Director of Panchayats (V.P)
Collectorate Campus, Tiruppur.
4.The Assistant Director of Rural Development (Audit)
Collectorate Campus, Tiruppur.
5.The Block Development Officer (V.P)
Udumalaipettai Panchayat Union
Tiruppur District.
6.The Tahsildar
Udumalaipettai Taluk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.3430 of 2023
Tiruppur District.
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
KP
Common Order in WP.Nos.15142 & 15773/2023
05.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
