IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 5.11.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.43892 of 2002 V.Elumalai. ... Petitioner vs. 1. Namathodu Village Panchayat, represented by its President, Peranamllur Union, Vandavasi Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District. 2. Block Development Officer, Pernamallur Panchayat Union, Thiruvannamalai District. 3. District Collector, Thiruvannamalai. (Respondents 2 and 3 are impleaded as per order dated 21.8.2007 in WPMP No.211 of 2007) ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to resolution No.4 dated 16.4.2002 and the consequential suspension order dated 17.4.2002 on the file of the respondent and to quash the entire proceeding and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner to the post of part time clerk, Namathodu Panchayat with monetary and service benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.N.S.Nandakumar For Respondents : Mr.V.Subbarayan for R1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ : Mr.V.Manoharan, Government Advocate for R2 and R3 O R D E R This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of suspension dated 17.4.2002 passed by the first respondent Namathodu village panchayat. 2. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the first respondent Namathodu village panchayat. Paragraph 2 of the counter-affidavit reads as follows:- "2. I submit that the Respondent appointed Mr.V.Pachaimuthu, S/o.Velu Gounder on 17.5.2002 as per the resolution No.8 passed by the Respondent council on 17.5.2002. Mr.Pachaimuthu functioning as a part time clerk and doing his duty perfectly. The petitioner now filed the present writ petition on 29.11.2002 challenging the order of suspension passed by the respondent in pursuant to the resolution No.4 dt.16.4.2002 on 17.4.2002, as if the petitioner did not know about the passing of the order of removal as per resolution No.6, dt.23.4.2002 which was refused to receive by the petitioner when the same is sent through registered post with acknowledgment due. The decision taken by the council is not a secrete one and thereby the person staying in the village is not entitled to say that he does not know the removal of the petitioner from his post and made by the council by passing valid resolution." 3. The W.P.M.P.No.64435 of 2002 filed for stay of the suspension order was dismissed on 27.2.2007. 4. At the time of final hearing, learned counsel for the first respondent produced the original order of removal sent to the writ petitioner which was refused by the writ petitioner, to substantiate the stand taken by the first respondent in para 2 of the counter- affidavit. A copy of the said order removing the petitioner from service was given to Mr.N.S.Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has already been removed from service. Intimation was sent to him by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ which was refused. According to Order V Rule 19A(2)(ii) CPC, if the Registered Post is refused, it should be declared that the notice has been duly served. Order V Rule 19A(2)(ii) CPC, reads as follows:- "(ii) Where the summons sent by registered post by an officer of Court is received back by the Court with an endorsement purporting to have been made by a postal employee to the effect that the defendant or his agent had refused to take delivery of the postal article containing the summons, when tendered to him the court issuing such summons may declare that the summons had been duly served on the defendant." 6. Since the petitioner has been removed from service, the writ petitioner has to challenge the same, if he so desires. The writ petition challenging the suspension order is not maintainable. 7. In such view of the matter, the present writ petition challenging the suspension order dated 17.4.2002 becomes infructuous. The writ petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order of removal in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ts To 1.The Block Development Officer, Pernamallur Panchayat Union, Thiruvannamalai District. 2.The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai. + One cc to Mr.N.S.Nandakumar, Advocate, SR No.59378 + One cc to M/s. V.Subbarayan, Advocate (SR No.59503) Order in W.P.No.43892 of 2002 MG (CO) RH (17.11.09) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/