1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29/9/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD)No.11305 of 2011 and MP(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 Kumaresan ... Petitioner Vs 1. The District Collector Theni District. 2. The Assistant Director (Panchayat) District Collectorate Theni. 3. The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) Andipatti Panchayat Union Theni District. 4. The President Thirumalapuram Andipatti Panchayat Union Theni District. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.26652/11/Q-4 dated 18/8/2011, quash the same consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into services. For petitioner... M/s.J.Nisha Banu For respondent... Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen Addl.Govt.Pleader O R D E R Challenge in this writ petition, is to an order passed by the Assistant Director (Panchayat), Theni/second respondent herein dated 18/8/2011, suspending the petitioner's service, on the ground of an alleged misconduct, which resulted in temporary misappropriation of a sum of Rs.1,185/-, not remitted within time. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. Assailing the correctness of the order, M/s.Nisha Banu, counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that, the impugned order of suspension is contrary to G.O.MS.No.175 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E 5) Department dated 5/12/2006, which states that the Panchayat President, alone is competent to suspend an employee and that as against the order of suspension, the employee has a right of appeal to the Block Development Officer. It is her further submission that, a second appeal is also provided to the District Collector and in such circumstances, there is a jurisdictional error committed by the Assistant Director (Panchayat), Theni in passing the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also made an attempt to assail the correctness of the impugned order on merits and contended that the petitioner has not committed any act of misappropriation as alleged. According to her, the petitioner has acted as per the directions of the President, Thirumalpuram, Andipatti Panchayat Union, Theni District and therefore, suspension is unwarranted. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 5. The issue as to whether, the District Collector or any other authority, subordinate to him, exercising control over the Panchayat, can suspend an employee of the Panchayat, or whether the President of Panchayat alone is the competent authority to suspend an employee is no more res integra, in view of the decision of this Court in C.SHAJU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COIMBATORE DISTRICT, COIMBATORE AND ANOTHER reported in (2011) 3 MLJ – 630, wherein, it has held as follows:- "The contention that the District Collector/Inspector of Panchayats has no jurisdiction to pass an impugned order of suspension, is liable to be rejected, in view of the provisions of Section 106 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. Only in a case, where the Village Panchayat President has imposed a punishment of suspension, the question of right of appeal arises. The power of the District Collector has been confirmed by this Court in an unreported judgment in SELVI.R.SHYNI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NILGIRIS." 6. In the light of the above said judgments, this Court is of the view that, there is no jurisdictional error committed by the Assistant Director (Panchayat), Theni, in suspending the petitioner on the allegation of misappropriation. Whether the petitioner, has committed a misconduct or not, is a matter to be enquired into, when the explanations/representations, is considered by the competent disciplinary authority. Further, under Article 226 of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Constitution of India, the power of the Court is restricted only to the limited extent of judicial review of examining the decision making process and not to scrutinise and examine the materials or the merits of the case, which form the basis for the decision taken by the disciplinary/appointing authority. Courts cannot set in over the decision taken by the disciplinary/appointing authority, to suspend an employee, when there is an allegation of misappropriation, involving moral turpitude. 7. In the light of the decisions and for the reasons stated supra, there is no manifest illegality in the impugned order warranting interference. 8. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Collector Theni District. 2. The Assistant Director (Panchayat) District Collectorate, Theni. 3. The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) Andipatti Panchayat Union, Theni District. 4. The President Thirumalapuram, Andipatti Panchayat Union Theni District. +1cc to Mrs.J.Nisha Banu, Advocate Sr.No.34131 +1cc to the Special Govt.Pleader, SR.No.34379 mvs ssk/29.10.2011 /7c-3p/- W.P.(MD) No.11305 of 2011 and MP(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 29/9/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/