IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.09.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE THIRU JUSTICE S. MANIKUMAR W.P.No.14326 of 2009 M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 C.Shaju ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. 2. The Joint Director/Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency, Coimbatore. ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3502/2009/K5, dated 16.07.2009 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondents 1 and 2 : Mr.V.Arun, AGP O R D E R By order, dated 16.07.2009, the District Collector, Coimbatore, first respondent herein, suspended the petitioner for certain irregularities, during the inspection conducted on 08.05.2009. 2. The said order is assailed mainly on the ground that the District Collector has no authority to take disciplinary proceedings against the Village Panchayat Assistant, as per G.O.Ms.No.175, dated 05.12.2006. According to the petitioner, only the Village Panchayat President is the competent authority to pass an order of suspension. He further submitted that the District Collector, being the Inspector of Panchayat, is the second appellate authority, under the abovesaid Government Order and therefore, the impugned order lacks jurisdiction. 3. Record of proceedings shows that while entertaining the Writ Petition, this Court, by an order, dated 28.07.2009, has granted an interim stay of the operation of the abovesaid impugned order. 4. Based on the counter affidavit, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that NREGA Scheme is implemented in Coimbatore District for the past one year and necessary instructions were given to field level functionaries for implementation of the scheme and maintenance of records. During inspection of the Joint Director/Project Officer, Coimbatore at Village Panchayat of Pollachi (North) Panchayat Union, it was found that the guidelines framed for the implementation of the scheme have not been followed properly and further, the petitioner has failed to maintain the records, as per the instructions given by higher officials. Therefore, the Joint Director/Project Officer, Coimbatore District, second respondent, sent an inspection report to the District Collector, Coimbatore, 1st respondent herein and also recommended to suspend the petitioner for the lapses found during inspection. Based on the recommendations, the first respondent has suspended the petitioner. 5. Learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that though, as per G.O.(Ms)No.175, RD & PR (E5), dated 05.12.2006, the Panchayat President and the Block Development Officer are the disciplinary and appellate authorities respectively, the District Collector, is also the competent authority to take disciplinary proceedings on the petitioner, as per Section 106 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994. He further submitted that the power of the District Collector, has been confirmed by this Court, in an unreported judgment in W.P.No.22826 of 2007, dated 29.01.2008 [Selvi.R.Shyni v. the District Collector, Nilgiris]. He therefore submitted that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order of suspension and prayed to sustain the same. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. Section 106 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act deals with the power to punish officers and servants and it reads as follows: Section 106. Power to punish officers and servants.- Subject to such control as may be prescribed, the executive authority, the commissioner or the secretary may censure, fine, withhold increments or promotions from, or reduce to a lower rank in the seniority list, or to a lower post or time-scale or to a lower stage in a time-scale, suspend, remove or dismiss any officer or servant in the service of village panchayat or panchayat union council or the district panchayat, as the case may be, for any breach of departmental rules or discipline, or for carelessness, unfitness, neglect of duty or other misconduct. 8. Perusal of G.O.(Ms)No.175, RD & PR (E5), dated 05.12.2006, shows that the panchayat employees shall serve under the control of the President of Village Panchayat. In respect of misconduct, indiscipline or neglect of duty, etc., the Village Panchayat President has powers to impose penalities, such as, censure, fine, withhold increments or promotions from, or reduce to a lower rank in the seniority list, or to a lower post or time-scale or to a lower stage in a time-scale, suspend, remove or dismiss any officer or servant in the service of village panchayat or panchayat union council or the district panchayat, as the case may be. 9. What is stated in the above said Government Order, is with reference to the nature of penalty, that can be imposed by the President of Village Panchayat. The word, "suspension", which has been used in Clause 5 of Administrative Control of the Village Panchayat, deals with suspension, as a measure of penalty and it cannot be interpreted to mean that pending formulation of charges or enquiry into acts of misconduct committed by Panchayat employees, the District Collector has no authority even to temporarily suspend a Panchayat Union employee. The District Collector is the head of the District Administration and he is the Inspector of Panchayats. 10. 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 W.P.No.22826 of 2007, dated 29.01.2008 [Selvi.R.Shyni v. the District Collector, Nilgiris]. 11. In view of the above, there is no manifest illegality in the impugned order and the impugned order passed by the District Collector is well within his jurisdiction. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed and the interim stay granted on 28.07.2009 is vacated. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2009 is dismissed and M.P.No.2 of 2009 is ordered. 21.09.2010 Index: Yes skm To 1. The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. 2. The Joint Director/Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency, Coimbatore. S. MANIKUMAR, J. skm W.P.No.14326 of 2009 21.09.2010