IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 09/03/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.A.K.SAMPATHKUMAR
Writ Appeal No.857 of 2000
The Executive Officer,
Idanganasalai Town Panchayat,
Sankari Taluk,
Salem District. ... Appellant/Respondent
-Vs-
1.K.Balasubramani
2.The District Collector,
(Director of District Panchayat)
Office of the Collectorate/Salem.
(2nd respondent impleaded as party
as per order of Court dt.1.11.2002
made in CMP No.13558/2001 by
CJ & CNJ) ... Respondents/Petitioner
Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters patent against the
order dated 16.3.2000 made in W.P.No.7221 of 1993.
!For Appellant : Mr.M.Liagat Ali
^For 1st Respondent : Mr.S.Ayyathurai
For 2nd respondent : Mr. E.Sampath Kumar
Government Advocate
:JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)
The above writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned
single Judge dated 16.3.2000 made in W.P.No.7221 of 1993, in and by which, the
learned Judge quashed the termination order dated 24.7 .1992 and directed the
appellant-Town Panchayat to reinstate the writ petitioner with continuity of
service, backwages and attendant benefits.
2. The first respondent herein was appointed as Sweeper in the place
of one P.Kandasamy by an order dated 30.01.1991. The appointment order, which
is available in page 2 of the typed set filed by the first respondent shows
that there was a vacancy in the post of Sweeper after retirement of the
incumbent P.Kandasamy. It further shows that a list was called for from the
Employment Exchange and the registration number of the first
respondent/petitioner K.Balasubramani is
No.2990/90 dated 22.8.1990 (furnished by the Employment Exchange) and after
satisfaction, selected him and appointed as Sweeper. No doubt, the post is a
temporary appointment in the time scale of Rs.750-12-870-14-940. In addition
to the above information, it is also brought to our notice that the selection
was made by a Selection Committee, which is also evident from the appointment
order dated 30.01.1991.
3. While the first respondent was continuing his service, the
appellant Town Panchayat issued a proceeding dated 24.7.1992 in and by which,
the appointment of the first respondent was cancelled. A perusal of the said
proceeding shows that four charges have been levelled against him. In such
circumstances, if the Panchayat wants to proceed further, it ought to have
issued a notice, afforded opportunity and after conducting the enquiry, they
are free to take a decision. However, it is clear that having alleged certain
charges against him, without following the procedure known to law, they have
simply terminated him from service. This aspect was considered by the learned
single Judge and after finding that the impugned order terminating the first
respondent from service without holding an enquiry with due opportunity to
rebut those charges, is against the principles of natural justice and also the
decision of the Supreme Court, the learned single Judge quashed the same.
4. In the light of the reasoning of the learned single Judge, we
verified the appointment order of the first respondent, the charges levelled
against him in the proceedings dated 24.7.1992 as well as the order of the
learned single Judge dated 16.3.2000. As rightly pointed out by the learned
counsel for the first respondent, though the appointment order shows that the
first respondent was appointed temporarily, as pointed out earlier, his
selection was for a vacant post that was caused due to the retirement of one
Kandasamy and that too, the selection was made by the Selection Committee. In
such circumstances, though the Town Panchayat is free to take action for any
violation, undoubtedly, they are bound to follow the procedure established by
law. We are in agreement with the conclusion of the learned single Judge
inasmuch as the first respondent herein was not afforded an opportunity to put
forth his defence with reference to the charges levelled against him in the
termination order dated 24.7.1992.
5. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any valid
ground for interference. Consequently, the writ appeal fails and the same is
dismissed. No costs.
raa
To
The District Collector,
(Director of District Panchayat)
Office of the Collectorate/Salem.