BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17/12/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition(MD)No.12130 of 2009 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 P.Oorkathi Panchayat President, Amathur Panchayat, Virudhunagar Panchayat Union, Virudhunagar District. .. Petitioner Versus 1.The District Collector/Inspector of Panchayats, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 2.The Block Development Officer, Virudhunagar Panchayat Union, Virudhunagar District. .. Respondents. Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No. 6/2192/09, dated 8.10.2009, and quash the same as illegal. !For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Ajmal Khan ^For Respondents... Mr.V.Rajasekaran Special Government Pleader :ORDER
This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorari, to
call for and quash the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 8.10.2009.
2. The petitioner has stated that she belongs to Scheduled caste community
and that she is from a very poor family. During the year 2006, she was elected
as the Panchayat President of Amathur Panchayat, in Virudhunagar Panchayat
Union, Virudhunagar District. She has been discharging her duties, without
giving any room for complaints. While so, the second respondent had issued a
show cause notice, dated 20.5.2009, asking the petitioner to show cause as to
why action should not be taken against her, under Section 205(1) of the Tamil
Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, due to the loss of Rs.3,77,940/-, caused to the
Panchayat, due to misappropriation. The petitioner had submitted her
explanation, along with the entire records, on 02.09.2009. However the second
respondent had issued a charge memo, in his proceedings, dated 21.8.2009. The
said charge memo had also been issued to the Vice-President, as well as to the
Panchayat Clerk, Santhosam, who had been appointed as such, on 01.09.2008. In
the explanation submitted by the petitioner, on 02.09.2009, it had been stated
that the Panchayat Clerk, Santhosam, was responsible for the misappropriation of
the funds belonging to the Panchayat.
3. It has also been stated that the second respondent had preferred a
complaint against the petitioner, on 24.9.2007, registered in Crime No.242 of
2009. The petitioner had obtained an Anticipatory Bail, on 9.10.2009. While so,
the first respondent had issued the impugned order, dated 8.10.2009, taking away
the cheque signing power from the petitioner and he had entrusted the same with
the Block Development Officer, Virudhunagar Panchayat Union, the second
respondent herein. He had also directed the Manager of Pandian Grama Bank,
Amathur, not to permit the petitioner to operate the Panchayat account.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the first respondent had issued the impugned order, dated 8.10.2009, without
giving prior notice to the petitioner and without giving an opportunity of
hearing. He had also submitted that the cheque issuing power of a President of
the Panchayat can be taken away only in the manner, as provided under Section
188(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. Further, the first respondent has
not assigned any proper reason for passing the impugned order, dated 08.10.2009.
The said order had been passed only on the strength of the charge memo issued by
the second respondent alleging that certain irregularities had been committed by
the petitioner, the Vice-President and the Panchayat Clerk, relating to the
funds of the Panchayat, without specifying the instances of the alleged
irregularities. The petitioner is entitled to exercise her powers, under Section
204(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, and the first respondent ought to
exercise the powers conferred under Section 203 only in rare cases.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on the decision of a
Division Bench, made in Pugazhendran, President, Brammapuram Village Panchayat,
Katpadi Panchayat Union, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District Vs. B.G.Balu and
others, reported in (2005(1) CTC 545), to state that a prior notice has to be
issued and hearing is to be given to the person concerned before divesting the
cheque signing power from the person.
6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, the
averments and the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied, as false.
It has also been stated that the writ petition is not maintainable, either in
law or on facts and it is liable to be dismissed in limine. It has also been
stated that the petitioner, along with the Vice-President and the Panchayat
Clerk, had been involved in serious irregularities, by misappropriating an
amount of Rs.3,77,940/-, belonging to the Panchayat. A show cause notice had
been issued to the petitioner asking her to state as to why action should not be
taken against her, under Section 205(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.
The said notice had been served on the petitioner, based on which she had
submitted her explanation, dated 02.09.2009. Thereafter, a criminal case has
been registered against the petitioner, in Crime No.242 of 2009, on the file of
the Amathur Police Station, under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal
Code, read with Section 34 of the said code. In such circumstances, the first
respondent, who is the Inspector of Panchayats in Virudhunagar District had
directed the second respondent to maintain and to supervise the money
transactions, in respect of the bank accounts of the Amathur Panchayat. Such an
action had been taken only in the interest of the administration of the
Panchayats and to preserve its funds. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to
be dismissed.
7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on
behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the
records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has
not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the impugned order of the
first respondent, dated 8.10.2009. It is seen that serious allegations have been
made against the petitioner stating that she has misappropriated the Panchayat
funds to the tune of Rs.3,77,940/-. A criminal case has been registered against
the petitioner, in Crime No.242 of 2009. It is also noted that a show cause
notice had been issued to the petitioner and she had submitted her explanation,
on 02.09.2009. Since the reasons stated in the explanation submitted by the
petitioner were not convincing, the first respondent had been constrained to
pass the impugned order, dated 08.10.2009, divesting the cheque signing power of
the petitioner. Since, the principles of natural justice had been followed by
the first respondent before he had passed the impugned order, dated 08.10.2009,
the decision of a Division Bench of this Court cited by the learned counsel for
the petitioner cannot be relied on to state that the impugned order of the first
respondent, dated 08.10.2009, is bad in law.
8. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as
devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
cs
To
1.The District Collector/Inspector of Panchayats,
Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
2.The Block Development Officer,
Virudhunagar Panchayat Union, Virudhunagar District.