1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.09.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY WRIT APPEAL (MD) Nos.127 and 128 OF 2009 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2009 W.A.(MD)No.127 of 2009 S.Vairamuthu .. Appellant/Petitioner vs. 1.The District Collector, Inspector of Panchayats, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 2.The Block Development Officer (Panchayat), Watrap Panchayat Union, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. 3.The President, Maharajapuram Panchayat, Srivillliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. .. Respondents/Respondents Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 19.2.2009 made in W.P.(MD)No.8552 of 2008 and W.P.No.11186/2008 respectively on the file of this Court. Prayer in W.P.No.8552/08:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent dated 18.9.2008 and set aside the same and consequently direct the third respondent to implement the order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.Pi.3/1878/08 dated 5.9.2008 and to reinstate the petition in service with continuity of service and all attendant and monetary benefits. For appellant in W.A.127/09 : Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan For 1st respondent : Mr.D.Sasikumar, AGP For 2nd respondent : Mr.Palaramasamy For 3rd respondent : Mr. M.Ajmal Khan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 W.A.(MD)No.128 of 2009 S.Vairamuthu .. Appellant/Petitioner in W.P.8552/08/2nd respondent vs. 1.P.Kanagaraj .. Respondent/Petitioner in WP.11186/08 2.The Block Development Officer (Panchayat), Watrap Panchayat Union, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. .. Respondent/2nd respondent in W.P.8552/08/ 1st respondent in W.P.11186/08 Prayer in W.P.No.11186/2008:- Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order passed by the first responent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.P3/1878/08 dated 5.9.08 and quash the same as illegal. For appellant in WA.128/09 : Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan For 1st respondent : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan For 2nd respondent : Mr.Palaramasamy COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J) These Writ Appeals are filed against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 19.2.2009 passed in Writ Petition (MD)Nos.8552 and 11186 of 2008. 2. The appellant herein filed W.P.(MD)No.8552 of 2008 for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the third respondent viz., the President, Maharajapuram Panchayat, dated 18.9.2008 wherein the third respondent rejected the representation of the petitioner seeking reinstatement in service. The third respondent rejected the request, which, according to the petitioner, is illegal and against law; that the third respondent should have implemented the order of the second respondent. 3. W.P.(MD)No.11186 of 2008 is by the Panchayat President for a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the Block Development Officer in his proceedings dated 5.9.2008 and to quash the same, whereby the Block Development Officer had set aside the punishment meted out by the Panchayat President. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 4. Going through the records, learned single Judge pointed out that the order passed by the Block Development Officer, the second respondent in W.P.No.8552 of 2008, was a flimsy one; there was no independent reason to support the conclusion and consequently set aside the order of the Block Development Officer. Thus he allowed both the writ petitions. While setting aside the order of the Block Development Officer and that of the Panchayat President, learned single Judge directed the Block Development Officer to conduct a de novo enquiry and pass final orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, the writ petitioner in W.P.No.8552 of 2008, submitted that having regard to the fact that the Block Development Officer had passed the order in favour of the appellant setting aside the order of dismissal and the President of Panchayat had not filed any appeal thereupon to the District Collector, the Writ Petition filed by the Panchayat President is not maintainable. 6. It is to be noted that the learned single Judge, while setting aside the order of the Block Development Officer, observed that the said order was not supported by any reason for coming to the conclusion to set aside the order of the dismissal passed by the Panchayat President. Leaving that for a moment, going by the records, when the order passed by the second respondent was on a mere acceptance of the stand of the appellant herein that charges are not proved, interest of justice demands that there be a de novo fresh enquiry. Hence, rightly, learned single Judge directed the authorities to have a fresh enquiry into the matter to arrive at a proper conclusion. The apprehension of the appellant is that the enquiry is not likely to be free of any bias, since the earlier inquiry and the conclusion were totally writ with the biased attitude of the third respondent. 7. In order to avoid any such allegation, we asked the learned counsel appearing for either side to nominate a person to be the enquiry officer. Upon a consensus agreement on the choice of the enquiry officer, Mr.H.Arumugam, Advocate, No.7, Law Chamber, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai is hereby appointed as the enquiry officer, who shall hold the enquiry and record the evidence after affording opportunity to both sides to state their case and place a proper report for further action in this regard. The entire enquiry should be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order copy. Till the proceedings are taken, the appellant shall be paid subsistence allowance. 7. Learned counsel for the Panchayat President states that the Panchayat President is willing to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards fee to the enquiry officer appointed by this Court. It is open to the parties to take appropriate action depending upon the result of the enquiry. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 8. With the above observation, the Writ Appeals are disposed of. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl. Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To 1.The District Collector, Inspector of Panchayats, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 2.The Block Development Officer (Panchayat), Watrap Panchayat Union, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. 3.The President, Maharajapuram Panchayat, Srivillliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. 4.Mr.H.Arumugam, Advocate, Law Chamber No.7, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. + 1 cc to Mr.Pala.Ramasamy, Advocate, SR No.27164 + 2 ccs to Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan, Advocate, SR Nos.27321 & 27322 W.A.(MD) Nos.127 and 128 OF 2009 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2009 Dated: 15.9.2009 asvm RJ/5.10.09 4p/8c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/