1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.8768 of 2011 E.Sivanandi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Project Director, District Rural Development, Madurai District, Madurai-20. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.37565/2011/C/t.6 dated 21.06.2011 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Arul Vadivel Sekar For respondents: Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, Additional Govt. Pleader O R D E R Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 21.06.2011 issued by the District Collector, Madurai District, suspending the petitioner, Panchayat Assistant from service. 2.Placing reliance on clause 5 of G.O.Ms.No.175, Rural Development and Panchayat (E5) Department dated 05.12.2006, and inviting the attention of this Court to paragraph No.4 of the impugned order, Mr.Arul Vadivel Sekar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of suspension, being an order of punishment, is violative of the aforesaid clause. In that, the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. He further submitted that inasmuch as the impugned order of suspension does not refer to any pending charges/contemplation of an enquiry into charges, the same can be construed only as a penalty and not as an ad interim suspension and therefore, prayed to set aside the same. 3.Considering the limited issue, Mr.Mohamed Mohideen, learned Additional Govt. Pleader was put on notice. Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in C.Shaju vs The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore-2 and another reported in 2011 (1) CWC 628 and T.Chandrakala vs Block Development Officer/Commissioner, Mugaiyur Panchayat Union, Villupuram District and another, reported in (2011) 3 MLJ 540, he submitted that the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.175, Rural Development and Panchayat (E5) Department dated 05.12.2006 only deals with the power of the President of a village Panchayat to impose punishments. He further submitted that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the word 'suspension' used in clause 5, refers only a penalty and the same cannot be interpreted to mean “ad interim” suspension. It is his further contention that no show-cause notice is required to be given, before invoking ad interim suspension. For the abovesaid reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5.Before adverting to the rival submissions, this Court deems it fit to consider the issues raised and answered in the above cited decisions. The impugned order therein was assailed mainly on the ground that the District Collector had no authority to take disciplinary proceedings against the Village Panchayat Assistant, as per G.O.Ms.No.175, Rural Development and Panchayat (E5) Department dated 05.12.2006 and that he cannot place the panchayat Union employee under suspension. 6.Answering the said issues, this Court in C.Shaju vs The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore-2 and another reported in 2011 (1) CWC 628 at paragraph No.9, held as follows: “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.” In the above said judgment, this Court has clarified that word 'suspension' mentioned in clause 5 of G.O.Ms.No.175, Rural Development and Panchayat (E5) Department dated 05.12.2006, means “suspension”, as a measure of penalty. 7.In T.Chandrakala vs Block Development Officer/Commissioner, Mugaiyur Panchayat Union, Villupuram District and another, reported in (2011) 3 MLJ 540, cited supra, another query was raised as to whether principles of natural justice must be extended to administrative actions, like an order of temporary suspension, pending enquiry. Distinguishing a judgment of this court in N.Sivakumar vs. V.K.Vembu reported in (2008) 3 MLJ 852 and following an earlier decision of this Court, in Y.Venkateswarlu vs State of Madras reported in (1954) 1 MLJ 244, Prathap Singh Vs State of Punjab reported in AIR 1964 SC 72, State of Orissa vs Shiva Parashad Das reported in 1985-II-LLJ-204, Vagadia Farambhai Bhurabhai vs T.J.Trivedi reported in, 1987 (1) SLR 648, this Court held that “interim order of suspension as not penalty, and therefore, opportunity of hearing is not necessary, before resorting to suspension. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 8.Reverting back to the case on hand, while referring to clause 5 of G.O.Ms.No.175, Rural Development and Panchayat (E5) Department dated 05.12.2006, it is again made clear that the provision has been made empowering the panchayat president to impose punishment, for violations of rules, negligence, dereliction of duty etc., and if the said power is exercised for temporarily suspend an employee, it is not necessary to conduct any detailed enquiry. If any punishment has to be imposed, then the employee is entitled to be heard. The contention that the impugned order of suspension does not reflect pendency of any disciplinary proceedings/contemplation of an enquiry into charges and therefore the same is liable to be set aside, cannot be countenanced for the reason that, mere omission of the abovesaid words would not vitiate the impugned order of suspension. Useful reference can be made to D.Uthirakumaran vs The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by Chief Secretary to Government, Madras-9 and another reported in 1988 Writ.L.R.229. What is relevant to be considered is the substance of an order and not the form. In the light of the above decisions, this Court, while sustaining the impugned order clarifies that the impugned order would be read only as ad interim suspension, and in that, the petitioner would be entitled to subsistence allowance, permissible under law. 9.Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is also dismissed. No costs. SD DEPUTY REGISTRAR ( WRITS ) /TRUE COPY/ ASST REGISTRAR vs To 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Project Director, District Rural Development, Madurai District, Madurai-20. 1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR: 26565: DM::2011:AUGUST:10:: W.P.(MD).No.8768 of 2011 05.08.2011 3P:4C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/