BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 31/07/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.Nos.1260 of 2005 W.P.Nos.1261 to 1263 & 3000 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.Nos.1226 to 1229 Of 2006 and W.V.M.P.Nos.609 & 1227 to 1229 of 2005 Marinadu .... Petitioner in W.P.No.1260 of 2005 R.Charles .... Petitioner in W.P.No.1261 of 2005 A.Padmanabhan .... Petitioner in W.P.No.1262 of 2005 U.Jegadeeswaran .... Petitioner in W.P.No.1263 of 2005 M.Sumathi .... Petitioner in W.P.No.3000 of 2005 Vs. 1.The District Collector, Madurai District. 2.The Block Development Officer (Panchayat) Alanganallur Panchayat Union, Madurai District. .... Respondents 1 & 2 in W.P.Nos.1260 to 1263 and 3000 of 2005 3.The Executive Officer, Village Panchayat President, Kottaimedu Panchayat, Alanganallur panchayat Union, Madurai District. .... Third Respondent in W.P.No.1261 of 2005 4.The Executive Officer, Village Panchayat President, Acchampatti Panchayat, Alanganallur panchayat Union, Madurai District. .... Third Respondent in W.P.No.1262 of 2005 5.The Executive Officer, Village Panchayat President, Chinna Ilanthaikulam Panchayat, Alanganallur panchayat Union, Madurai District. .... Third Respondent in W.P.No.1262 of 2005 6.The Executive Officer, Village Panchayat President, P.Mettupatti Panchayat, Alanganallur panchayat Union, Madurai District. .... Third Respondent in W.P.No.1263 of 2005 7.The President, Mullipallam Panchayat, Vadipatty Panchayat Union, Madurai District. .... Third Respondent in W.P.No.3000 of 2005 PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for records on the file of the third respondent herein pertaining to his impugned charge memo dated 31.01.2005 and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned. !For Petitioners ... Mr.A.Saravanan for Mr.Sethuraman ^For Respondent ... Mr.K.Bhaskaran for R1 in all W.Ps Additional Government Pleader For Respondent ... Mrs.Ambujam Selvarani For R2 in all W.Ps :ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents. By consent of all the counsel,
these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. Since the issues involved
in both the writ petitions are common, common order is being passed.
2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the third
respondent dated 31.01.2005. These Writ Petitioners in the above Writ Petitions
were all working as Village Panchayat Assistant. On the basis of some
allegations regarding purchase of Dhotis, Sarees, shirting cloth, bed spread
etc., while working in the Village Panchayat, in the year 1994-95 and 1995-96,
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioners. In respect of
the Writ Petition in W.P.No.1260 to 1260 of 2005, charge memo was issued on
31.01.2005, in respect of W.P.No.3000 of 2005, the impugned order is one of
removal from service. The other persons who were alleged to have involved in the
said transactions in the years 1994 to 1996, challenging the respective charge
memos, have approached this Court, by filing batch of Writ Petitions in
W.P.No.966 of 2005 etc. This Court while referring to the Tamil Nadu Panchayats
Act 1994, in the Judgement reported in R.Tirupathy and others Vs. The District
Collector, Madurai District Collectorate, Madurai -2, and others [2006 (2) CTC
574], also relied upon the various judgements of the Hob’ble Apex Court and
allowed the Writ Petitions by quashing respective charge memos.
3. The said order was passed on the basis of various grounds including in
respect of transaction that took place in the year 1994-95 and 1995-96, i.e.,
after nearly 11 years, charges were framed against the petitioner, and,
therefore, it is on the basis of the delay in framing charges, the Writ
Petitions were allowed. Further, it was decided by the Apex Court in Nagaraj
Shivarao Karjagi V. Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Manipal and another, reported
in 1991 (3) SCC 219, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that though
charges were framed based on the investigation of the vigilance and Anti-
Corruption Department that alone cannot be a ground for the purpose of
initiating disciplinary proceedings. It was based on the above said grounds,
charges were quashed. While concluding the said Writ Petition, I have given the
final order as follows:
“In view of the reasons stated above, I am of the considered view that the
impugned charge memos are liable to be quashed both on the grounds of inordinate
delay and one passed with the closed mind and for extraneous reasons. In view of
the same, the impugned charge memos are quashed and the Writ Petitions are
allowed”.
4. In the present case, the petitioners who are also belonging to the
same groups and the same charges were framed, in view of the considerable
Judgements, which have been cited above and since the petitioners are also
charged for the same transaction, which took place in the year 1994-95 and 1995-
96, and following the said Judgements, the impugned charge memos in the Writ
Petitions in W.P.Nos.1260 to 1263 of 2005 are quashed and the Writ Petitions are
allowed.
5. In respect of W.P.No.3000 of 2005, which also relates to the purchase
of uniform materials for the year 1995 to 1996, the impugned order dated
31.03.2005, states that the petitioner has been terminated from service. In
respect of the said petitioner, charges were framed on 07.02.2005. A reference
to the charge memo also confirms the fact that the same also refer to the
purchase of uniforms materials during the years 1995 to 1996 and ultimately, by
the impugned order passed by the third respondent on 31.03.2005, he was
terminated and the impugned order does not disclose any reason for the same.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case,
there is a stay of the impugned order and by virtue of that, the petitioner is
continuing in service, apart from the fact that there is a delay in framing
charges against the petitioner and there are no reasons given in the impugned
order for dismissal or the termination of the petitioner.
7. In view of the above facts, the impugned order passed by the respondent
on 31.03.2005, is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the
connected W.P.M.Ps and W.V.M.Ps are closed. No costs.
nb
P.JYOTHIMANI,J
nb
To
1.The District Collector,
Madurai District.
2.The Block Development Officer (Panchayat)
Alanganallur Panchayat Union,
Madurai District.
3.The Executive Officer,
Village Panchayat President,
Kottaimedu Panchayat,
Alanganallur panchayat Union,
Madurai District.
4.The Executive Officer,
Village Panchayat President,
Acchampatti Panchayat,
Alanganallur panchayat Union,
Madurai District.
5.The Executive Officer,
Village Panchayat President,
Chinna Ilanthaikulam Panchayat,
Alanganallur panchayat Union,
Madurai District.
6.The Executive Officer,
Village Panchayat President,
P.Mettupatti Panchayat,
Alanganallur panchayat Union,
Madurai District.
7.The President,
Mullipallam Panchayat,
Vadipatty Panchayat Union,
Madurai District.