Madras High Court
The President vs B.Muthu on 16 June, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A.(MD)No.336 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A.(MD)No.336 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.3618 of 2023
1.The President,
Naduvakurichi Minor Panchayat,
Melaneelithanallur Panchayat Union,
Sankarankoil Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayats),
Melaneelithanallur Panchayat Union,
Melaneelithanallur,
Sankarankoil Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District at
The Collector Office,
Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli. ... Appellants
Vs.
B.Muthu ... Respondent
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
W.A.(MD)No.336 of 2023
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow
the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.14347
of 2014 dated 26.04.2022 on the file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.A.Kannan,
Addl. Government Pleader.
For Respondent : Mr.S.Selvakumar
JUDGMENT
(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
Heard both sides.
2.The President of the local body is on appeal challenging the
order dated 26.04.2022 made in W.P.(MD)No.14347 of 2014 filed by the
first respondent herein.
3.The first respondent herein was appointed as Panchayat Assistant
in the year 1996 in Naduvakurichi Minor Panchayat. He was removed
from service vide communication dated 24.06.2013 by the local body.
Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner filed an appeal before the
District Collector, Tirunelveli. The District Collector dismissed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
appeal vide order dated 10.06.2014. Challenging the proceedings of the
second respondent and the order of the appellate authority, the writ
petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.14347 of 2014. The learned Single Judge
disposed of the writ petition in the following terms:
“9. The contention of the petitioner is that the show cause
notice was issued alleging certain irregularities, for which enquiry
was conducted. In the appellate order, the appellate authority has
introduced entirely a new case, which was not shown in the show
cause notice at all. The petitioner has submitted that there is
deviation from the original allegations shown in the show cause
notice and prayed to allow the writ petition.
10. The next contention putforth by the petitioner is that the
first respondent with the intention to appoint his own person has
initiated the proceedings, also has suppressed the explanation and
the reply submitted by the petitioner. Moreover, the first
respondent was present in the enquiry and intimidated the enquiry
officer, hence contended the enquiry officer has conducted the
enquiry with bias. Therefore this Court is of the considered
opinion that the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated with bias
and also there is violative of principles of natural justice.
11. The respondents have directed the Deputy Block
Development Officer, Melaneeithanallur to investigate without any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
authority and the same is vitiated since the same was investigated
behind the back of the petitioner. If there is any adverse report
submitted against the petitioner, the respondents ought to have
directed the petitioner to submit explanation for the alleged
adverse report. The respondents have not called for any
explanation from the petitioner and the investigation was done
behind the back of the petitioner. This Court is of the considered
opinion that if any report is relied on by the respondents, then the
petitioner is entitled to get a copy of the same. Since in the present
case the respondents failed to serve a copy of the report, therefore
the order of termination is liable to be set aside.
12. The allegation against the petitioner is that the
petitioner has misappropriated the amount, but the explanation
given by the petitioner is that he has already deposited the amount
to the first respondent. The first respondent has not denied such
allegations in the counter submitted before this Court. Therefore,
this Court left with no option, is of the considered opinion that the
allegation of misappropriation is not proved.
13. For the observations stated supra, this Court is inclined
to set aside the impugned order of termination and modify the
punishment. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the
punishment of termination is modified as stoppage of increments
for a period of 3 years without cumulative effect. The petitioner
was dismissed from his service from 24.06.2013, which was
confirmed by the District Collector on 10.06.2014. The petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
was not in service from the order of the termination i.e. from
24.06.2013. Hence, this Court directs the respondents to reinstate
the petitioner. As far as the backwages are concerned generally
this Court denies backwages on the principle of “No work No
pay”. Since this Court has set aside the order of termination and
based on the nature of the case this Court is of the considered
opinion that the petitioner is entitled to 50% of backwages. The
respondents are directed to pay 50% of backwages within a period
of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.”
Questioning the same, the local body has filed this writ appeal.
4.The learned Additional Government Pleader reiterated all the
contentions set out in the grounds of appeal and called upon this Court to
set aside the impugned order and allow this writ appeal.
5.Per contra, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted
that interference with the order of the learned Single Judge is not
warranted.
6.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through
the materials on record. During the relevant time, the first respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
herein was working as Panchayat Secretary. His service conditions were
therefore governed by G.O.(Ms)No.175, Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj Department dated 05.12.2006. Clause 5 of the said
government order reads as follows:
“fpuhk Cuhl;rpapd; eph;thfj;jpy;> Cuhl;rp cjtpahsh;
Jiwapd; tpjpKiwfis kPwy;> xOq;fPdk;> ftdf; FiwT
jFjpapd;ik> flik jtWjy;> jtwhd eltbf;iffs;
Nghd;wtw;wpy; <Lgl;lhy; me;j Cuhl;rp cjtpahsiu
fz;lzk;> mguhjk;> Cjpa cah;T my;yJ gzp cah;it
epWj;jp itj;jy; my;yJ %g;Gg; gl;baypy; juk; ,wf;Fjy;>
my;yJ fPo;epiyg; gzpaplj;jpy; itj;jy; my;yJ fhyKiw
Cjpaj;jpy; fPo;epiyapy; itj;jy;> jw;fhypf gzpePf;fk;
nra;jy;> gzpapypUe;J ePfF
; jy; my;yJ gzptpyf;fk;
nra;ayhk;. ,Ug;gpDk; mjw;F Kd;ghf me;j Cuhl;rp
cjtpahsiu Neub tpruhizf;F miog;gJ cl;gl mth;
jdJ tpsf;fj;ij mspf;f mtUf;F Nghjpa tha;g;G
mspf;fg;gl;bUf;f Ntz;Lk;.”
A mere reading of the aforesaid clause would show that before passing an
order of dismissal, the Panchayat Secretary must be given due
opportunity and also be called for direct enquiry. We had look at the
communication dated 24.06.2013 issued by the appellant. It merely
states that even though the writ petitioner was called for enquiry on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
10.06.2013, since he did not appear for enquiry and offer his explanation,
he has been straightaway dismissed from service. Such an approach is
impermissible in law. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would
state that the writ petitioner did appear for enquiry on 10.06.2013. But
the President of the local body chose to terminate his service as if he did
not appear at all and also he had not submitted any explanation.
7.Removing a person from service virtually amounts to a capital
punishment. Therefore, such an order must refer to antecedent events,
the materials on record and the reason as to why, the employer proposed
to dismiss the employee. The order dated 24.06.2013 is cryptic. It does
not refer to any adverse materials against the writ petitioner at all.
Subsequently, the Block Development Officer, Melaneelithanallur passed
final order dated 07.02.2014 dismissing the appeal. Challenging the
same, the writ petitioner filed second appeal before the District Collector.
The District Collector also dismissed the appeal vide proceedings dated
10.06.2014. Challenging the same, the above mentioned writ petition
came to be filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
8.The order passed by the original authority is cryptic. This aspect
of the matter ought to have been considered by the first and second
appellate authority. We are of the view that the order of the learned
Single Judge does not warrant interference and the writ appeal is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
(G.R.S. J.,) & (K.R.S. J.,)
16.06.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
To:
1.The President,
Naduvakurichi Minor Panchayat,
Melaneelithanallur Panchayat Union,
Sankarankoil Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayats),
Melaneelithanallur Panchayat Union,
Melaneelithanallur,
Sankarankoil Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
3.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District at
The Collector Office,
Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
and
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
ias
16.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
