Madras High Court
C.Kalaiselvi vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 23 October, 2024
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.No.24409 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 18.10.2024
Pronounced on : 23.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.24409 of 2024 and
WMP.Nos.26690 & 30680 of 2024
C.Kalaiselvi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department,
Fort St.George,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
2.The District Collector/Panchayat Inspector,
District Collectorate,
Salem District
3.The Tahsildar,
Attur Taluk,
Salem District
4.The Block Development Officer,
Attur Taluk,
Salem District ... Respondents
PRAYER:
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari after calling from all the records
pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent in
Na.Ka.No.785/2023/A5 dated 15.07.2024 in proceedings GO(3pa) No.20
1/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.24409 of 2024
dated 15.07.2024 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Sriram,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.A.Rajakumar
For Respondents
For R1 to 3 : Mr.S.Arumugam,
Government Advocate
For R4 : Mr.C.Kathiravan,
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed
by the first respondent dated 15.07.2024 thereby confirmed the order
passed by the second respondent thereby removed the petitioner from the
post of President of Paithur Panchayat, Attur Taluk, Salem District.
2. The petitioner was elected President of Paithur Panchayat.
While being so, on receipt of complaint from general public, the petitioner
was served with charge memo by the second respondent. On receipt of
explanation from the petitioner, the second respondent without being
satisfied with the same, ordered to conduct enquiry by the third
respondent. The third respondent convened a meeting as contemplated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. In the said
meeting, all the 12 ward members participated, in which except two
members, other 10 members did not accept the charges initiated as
against the petitioner. Even then, the second respondent conducted
enquiry thereby removed the petitioner from the post of President of
Paithur Panchayat. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal
before the first respondent and the same was also dismissed.
3. Mr.A.K.Sriram, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that though out of 12 ward members, 10
members did not support the allegations as against the petitioner in the
meeting convened by the third respondent, the second respondent differed
with the views and without giving further opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner, removed her from the post of President. In fact, the petitioner
sought for time to submit her explanation before the second respondent
on the complaint. However, the petitioner was not given sufficient time to
submit explanation and it was ordered to convene a meeting by the third
respondent. The petitioner was set exparte before the second respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Therefore, it is clear violation of principles of natural justice. The
appellate authority also mechanically dismissed the appeal without
appreciating the above facts and circumstances.
3.1 In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in the
case of The District Collector and Inspector of District Panchayat,
Villupuram District and another Vs. Devi Parasuraman1, in which the
Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court held as follows:
17. In the light of the discussions made above, we
summarise our views as follows :-
i) An act of the Inspector u/s 205 is quasi-judicial in
nature;
ii) If the Inspector is satisfied with the explanation
submitted by the President u/s 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
1 2009 (4) CTC 609
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
Accordingly, if the Inspector of Panchayat differs with the views
expressed by the Village Panchayat and decides to remove the President
or to drop the proceedings against the President, the Inspector of
Panchayat 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 and opportunity stating the reasons for difference.
4. Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused all the materials placed before this Court.
5. On perusal of the counter filed by the fourth respondent and
on hearing the submissions made by Mr.C.Kathiravan, the learned
Special Government Pleader appearing for the fourth respondent revealed
that on receipt of complaint from the general public of Paithur Panchayat,
the second respondent issued notice dated 04.07.2023. The second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent framed five charges against the petitioner as follows:
Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;?1
Mj;J}h; Cuhl;rp xd;wpak; igj;J}h; Cuhl;rpapy; fy;fiu.
kz;fiu mikf;Fk; gzpfSf;F Cuhl;rp kd;w jiyth;. jdJ khkdhh;
bgahpy; ntiybra;jjhft[k; kw;Wk; Ml;Lf;bfhl;lif mikf;Fk; gzpf;F
gadhspf;F tH';f ntz;oa bjhifapy; nkhro bra;jjhft[k.; igj;J}h;
Cuhl;rp kd;w jiyth; jpUkjp/fiybry;tp. vd;gth; kPJ bghJkf;fsplk;
,Ue;J g[fhh; tug;bgw;wjhft[k.; g[fhh; kD bjhlh;ghf Mj;J}h;
xd;wpaj;jpw;Fl;gl;l igj;J}h; Cuhl;rpapy; kfhj;kh fhe;jp njrpa Cuf
tsh;rr; p ntiy cWjp jpll; j;jpd;fPH; eilbgWk; gzpfspy; CHy;
eilbgWtJ Fwpj;J bghJ kf;fsplkpUe;J bgwg;gl;l g[fhh; kDtpd;
mog;gilapy 03/09/2022 kw;Wk; 20/09/2022 Mfpa njjpfspy; fs Ma;t[
nkw;bfhz;ljpy; gjpntLfs; 1 Kjy; 7 tiu rhptu guhkhpf;fg;gltpy;iy
vdt[k.; ,g;gjpntl;oy; bgUk;ghyhd FLk;g jiyth; kw;Wk;
cWg;gpdh;fspd; g[ifg;gl';fs; xl;lg;gltpy;iy vd;Wk;. Cuhl;rp kd;w
jiyth; jpUkjp/fiyr;bry;tp vd;gthpd; khkdhh; fe;jrhkp j-bg
mj;jpag;gft[zl; h; ,we;J Rkhh; gj;J Mz;Lfs; Mfptpl;lJ vd;Wk;.
Mdhy; ,tuJ bgahpy; kfhj;kh fhe;jp njrpa Cuf ntiy cWjp
jpll; j;jpy; fy;fiu. kz;fiu mikf;Fk; gzpfSf;F Rkhh; K:d;W yl;rk;
U:gha;fF
; kfhj;kh fhe;jp njrpa Cuf ntiy cWjp jpl;l epjpapy;
,Ue;J brytplg;gl;Ls;sjhf fs ma;tpy; fz;lwpag;gl;ljhf
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/
Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;?2
nkw;fhQqk; Fw;wr;rhl;L?1 bjhlh;ghf igj;J}h; Cuhl;rp kd;w
jiyth; jpUkjp/fiyr;bry;tp vd;gtiu TLjy; Ml;rpah; (tsh;rr; p).
khtl;l Cuf tsh;r;rp Kfik. nryk; Kd;g[ 30/09/2022 kw;Wk; 15/10/2022
khiy 5/00 kzpf;F tprhuizf;F M$h; MFk;go cj;jutplg;gl;Lk;
tprhuizf;F M$uhfkYk;. mjw;fhd tpsf;fKk; ehsJ njjp tiu
bjhptpf;ftpy;iy vdt[k Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;Ls;sJ/
Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;?3
kfhj;kh fhe;jp njrpa Cuf ntiy cWjp jpl;l gzpfis
nkw;bfhs;tjw;F Cuhl;rp kd;w jiyth; jFe;j xj;JiHg;g[
tH';fhjjhy;. Cuhl;rpapd; tsh;r;rp kw;Wk; muR ey jpl;l';fis rhptu
bray;gLj;j Koahky; epYitapnyna cs;sJ/ ,jdhy; muRf;F
mtg;bgah; Vw;gl Cuhl;rp kd;w jiyth; fhuzkhf cs;sjhft[k;
Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;Ls;sJ/
Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;?4
nkYk;. 01/11/2022. 07/11/2022 kw;Wk; 11/11/2022 Mfpa njjpfspy;
ntiy ml;il g[Jgpj;J ju ml;il xd;Wf;F jy U:/1000-? nfl;gjhf
bghJkf;fsplk; ,Ue;J g[fhh; kDbgw;wJ vdt[k.; ,g;gf[ hh; kD
bjhlh;ghf 02/11/2022 kw;Wk; 21/11/2022 njjpfspy; fs Ma;t[
nkw;bfhz;ljpy; ntiy ml;il xd;Wf;F U:/1.000-? nfl;lJ cWjp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
bra;ag;gl;lJ vdt[k; bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/
Fw;wr;rhl;L vz;?5
(As per the Annual Master circular entitlement 1/3.1 All the Job
cards must remain in the custody of concerned house hold and possession
of Hob card by any one other person including MGNREGS
Functionaries, without valid reasons, will be considered as an offence
punishable under Section 25 of the Act)?d;go ntiy ml;ilf;F
tpz;zg;gpj;j egUf;F 15 ehl;fSf;Fs; mtUf;fhd ntiy ml;ilapid
tH';f ntz;Lk;/
6. Simultaneously, the third respondent was also served notice
with regards to the charges alleged against the petitioner. On enquiry, the
fourth respondent also submitted report before the second respondent.
However, the petitioner on receipt of notice from the second respondent
failed to submit her explanation. On the strength of the report, the second
respondent ordered to convene a meeting by the third respondent as
contemplated under Section 205 of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. On
receipt of the said direction, the third respondent issued notice to the
petitioner as well as other 12 ward members to convene a meeting. After
convening a meeting, the third respondent recorded the statement of all
the ward members and submitted report. Accordingly, out of 12 ward
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
members, 10 of them did not accept the charges alleged as against the
petitioner and two of them accepted the charges levelled against the
petitioner.
7. On perusal of the said report, all the 10 ward members
mechanically deposed that they do no know about the allegations. They
never denied the charges levelled as against the petitioner. It shows that
they conveniently deposed in order to safeguard the petitioner. Therefore,
the second respondent rightly concluded that the petitioner failed to
submit any explanation on the charges levelled against her and also other
ward members did not explain with proper reasons to deny the charges
and mechanically did not support the charges.
8. On perusal of the charges, the petitioner misappropriated
huge money from Paithur Panchayat. Therefore, the second respondent
removed the petitioner from the post of President of Paithur Panchayat. It
is relevant to extract the provisions under Section 205 of Tamil Nadu
Panchayats Act, 1994.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
205. Removal of President-
(1)The Inspector -(a)of his own motion, or(b)on a
representation in writing signed by not less than two-thirds
of the sanctioned strength of the Village Panchayat
containing a statement of charges against the President
and presented in person to the Inspector by any two of the
members of the Village Panchayat, is satisfied that the
President willfully omits or refuses to carry out or disobeys
any provision of this Act, or any Rule, bye-law,
Regulation, or lawful order made or issued under this Act
or abuses any power vested in him, the Inspector shall,by
notice in writing, require the President to offer within a
specified date, his explanation with respect to his acts of
omission or commission mentioned in the notice.
(2)If the explanation is received within the specified
date and the Inspector considers that the explanation is
satisfactory, he may drop further action with respect to the
notice. If no explanation is received within the specified
date or if the explanation received is in his opinion not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
satisfactory, he shall forward to the Tahsildar of the taluk
a copy of the notice referred to in sub-section (1) and the
explanation of the President if received within the specified
date with a proposal for the removal of the President for
ascertaining the views of the Village Panchayat.
(3)The Tahsildar shall then convene a meeting for
the consideration of the notice and the explanation, if any,
and the proposal for the removal of the President, at the
office of the Village Panchayat at a time appointed by the
Tahsildar.
(4)A copy of the notice of the meeting shall be
caused to be delivered to the President and to all the
members of the Village Panchayat by the Tahsildar at least
seven days before the date of the meeting.
(5)The Tahsildar shall preside at the meeting
convened under this section and no other person shall
preside thereat. If, within half an hour appointed for the
meeting, the Tahsildar is not present to preside at the
meeting, the meeting shall stand adjourned to a time to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appointed and notified to the members and the President
by the Tahsildar under sub-section (6).
(6)If the Tahsildar is unable to preside at the
meeting, he may, after recording his reasons in writing,
adjourn the meeting to such other time as he may appoint.
The date so appointed shall be not later than thirty days
from the date so appointed for the meeting under sub-
section (3). Notice of not less than seven clear days shall
be given to the members and the President of the time
appointed for the adjourned meeting.
(7)Save as provided in sub-sections (5) and (6), a
meeting convened for the purpose of considering the notice
and the explanation, if any, and the proposal for the
removal of the President under this section shall not, for
any reason, be adjourned.
(8)As soon as the meeting convened under this
section is commenced, the-Tahsildar shall read to the
Village Panchayat the notice of the Inspector and the
explanation if any, of the President [and the proposal for
the removal of the President] [Inserted by Tamil Nadu
Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1999 (Tamil Nadu Act 2 of
1999).], for the consideration of which it has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
convened.[(8-A) There shall be no debate in any meeting
under this section.] [Sub-section 8-A was inserted by
Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1999 (Tamil
Nadu Act 2 of 1999).]
(9)The Tahsildar shall not speak on the merits of the
notice or explanation nor shall he be entitled to vote at the
meeting.
(10)The views of the Village Panchayat shall be
duly recorded in the minutes of the meeting and a copy of
the minutes shall forthwith, on the termination of the
meeting, be forwarded by the Tahsildar to the Inspector.
(11)The Inspector may, after considering the views
of the Village Panchayat in this regard, in his discretion
either remove the President from office by notification with
effect from a date to be specified therein or drop further
action.
(12)The Government shall have power to cancel any
notification issued under sub-section (11) and may,
pending a decision on such cancellation, postpone the date
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
specified in such notification.
(13)[ Any person in respect of whom a notification
has been issued under sub-section (11) removing him from
the office of President shall, unless the notification is
cancelled under sub-section (12), be ineligible for election
as President until the expiry of three years from the date
specified in such notification as postponed by the order, if
any, issued under sub-section (12).] [Sub-section (13)
substituted by Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Amendment) Act,
2007 (Tamil Nadu Act 16 of2007) w.e.f. 8th June 2007.]
9. Section 205(11) of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 says
that on receipt of the views of the Village Panchayat in a meeting
convened by the third respondent, the Inspector of Panchayat's discretion
either remove the President from Office by notification with effect from
the date to be specified therein or drop further action. Therefore, the
second respondent has power of discretion to remove the President of
Village Panchayat though some of the members supported the President's
continuance as President of Village Panchayat. Further, the second
respondent never differed from the views of Village Panchayat. On the
powers vested with him under Section 205(11), the second respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
can remove the President on his considered opinion that the President has
to be removed from the post. If the second respondent differs from the
opinion of the Village Panchayat, then the petitioner is entitled for further
notice and the second respondent has to state the reasons for his
difference from the opinion of the Village Panchayat. Here in the case on
hand, the second respondent never differed with the views of the Village
Panchayat. Therefore, the judgment cited by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner is not applicable to the case on hand. Further,
the first respondent who is being the appellate authority, rightly
considered the above facts and circumstances and rightly rejected the
appeal.
10. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or
illegality in the impugned orders passed by the first and second
respondents. As such, this writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to
be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
23.10.2024
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
lok
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department,
Fort St.George,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
2.The District Collector/Panchayat Inspector,
District Collectorate,
Salem District
3.The Tahsildar,
Attur Taluk,
Salem District
4.The Block Development Officer,
Attur Taluk,
Salem District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
23.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
