IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 23-02-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.26741 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 V.Karunanithi .. Petitioner. Versus 1. The Secretary to Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Development, Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Panchayats cum District Collector, Vellore District Collectorate, Sathuvachari, Vellore-9. .. Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to G.O.(D) No.666, dated 28.11.2009, from the file of the first respondent and quash the same, which confirm the removal proceedings passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.A5/1558/08, dated 24.6.2009, on the file of the second respondent and the gazette notification, dated 8.7.2009, published in Part VI Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette and ordering the petitioner to continue to function as the President Nanthiyalam Arcot Panchayat Union, Vellore District, under the circumstance of the case. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Margabandhu For Respondents : Mr.R.Murali Government Advocate O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The petitioner was elected, as the President of Nanthiyalam Village Panchayat, during the panchayat elections, held in the year, 2006. As the president of the said panchayat, the petitioner had been discharging his functions, to the best of his abilities, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. The petitioner was being guided in the administration of the panchayat and in the maintenance of the accounts, by one Narayanan, the panchayat Clerk. 3. The panchayat Clerk, Narayanan, was indulging in malpractices and he was misappropriating the funds of the panchayat. Therefore, the petitioner had taken action to remove him from the post of panchayat clerk. Due to the said action taken by the petitioner, the panchayat clerk, Narayanan, was having a grudge against the petitioner. Therefore, he had manipulated the panchayat records, in order to make certain allegations against the petitioner, along with a few other panchayat members, who are his relatives. 4. The second respondent had framed certain charges against the petitioner, based on which he had called for an explanation from the petitioner. Even though the petitioner had submitted his explanation, the second respondent had taken action against him, under Section 204 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, taking away the cheque signing power of the petitioner, by an order, dated 22.6.2008. However, the petitioner had been removed from the post of President of Nanthiyalam Village Panchayat, in accordance with the provisions of Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, by the proceedings, dated 8.7.2009. 5. A revision petition filed by the petitioner, under Section 205(12) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, challenging the order of removal, had been rejected by the first respondent, by an order, in G.O.(D) No.666, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (PR4) Department, dated 28.11.2009. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Even though various grounds have been raised challenging the impugned proceedings of the respondents the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, in spite of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the second respondent had taken action against the petitioner by taking away the cheque signing power of the petitioner, by an order, dated 22.6.2008. Based on the same allegations the petitioner had been removed from the post of President, by an order passed by the second respondent, under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, on 8.7.2009. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also submitted that, in spite of the majority of the ward members voting in favour of the petitioner, the second respondent had passed an order removing the petitioner from the post of President, without https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Such an order is arbitrary and illegal, as held by a Division Bench of this Court, in Pugazhendran V. B.G.Balu (2005(1) CTC 545). In such circumstances, the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 24.6.2009, notified in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 8.7.2009, is liable to be set aside. 8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it has been stated that the petitioner is guilty of certain acts which would amount to misappropriation of the panchayat funds. Since, serious allegations had been levelled against the petitioner, the cheque signing power of the petitioner had been withdrawn. Later, he was removed from the post of the president of Nanthiyalam Village Panchayat, by an order of the second respondent, dated 24.6.2009, and it had been published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 8.7.2009. 9. In view of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, made in Pugazhendran V. B.G.Balu (2005(1) CTC 545), this Court is of the considered view that the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 24.6.2009, and the consequential notification, dated 8.7.2009, are quashed. From the records available it is clear that even though the majority of the ward members were in favour of the petitioner the second respondent had issued the impugned proceedings removing the petitioner from the post of the president of Nanthiyalam Village Panchayat, without giving him an opportunity of hearing. In fact, the second respondent ought to have given an opportunity of hearing, as held by the Division Bench of this Court, in the said decision. In such circumstances, the second respondent is permitted to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner, based on the charges already framed against him and it is for the second respondent to pass appropriate orders, thereafter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, in view of the serious charges levelled against the petitioner, the petitioner shall not be permitted to take charge, as the President of the Nanthiyalam Village Panchayat, till the proceedings are completed and final orders are passed by the second respondent. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar csh https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Secretary to Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Development, Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Panchayats cum District Collector, Vellore District Collectorate, Sathuvachari, Vellore-9. 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.12350 1 cc to Mr.R.Margabandhu, Advocate, Sr.No.11845 Writ Petition No.26741 of 2009 KA {CO} TP/19.3.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/