IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 03.2.2011
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR
Writ Petition No.25563 of 2008
S. Jehan Ara ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Commissioner of
Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj,
Chennai 600 051.
2. The District Collector,
Coimbatore. ... Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 31.7.2008 bearing Roc.No.21288/08/DPC-22 of the 1st respondent herein confirming the order dated 22.2.2008 bearing Roc.No.14876/2007/T2 passed by 2nd respondent and quash the same with all consequential benefits.
For petitioner : Mr.V. Suthakar
For respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal
Govt. Advocate
-----
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 31.7.2008 bearing Roc.No.21288/08/DPC-22 of the 1st respondent herein confirming the order dated 22.2.2008 bearing Roc.No.14876/2007/T2 passed by 2nd respondent and quash the same with all consequential benefits.
2. The Collector and the Director of Rural Panchayat overlooked relevant factors before finding the petitioner guilty and erred in punishing the petitioner without application of mind to the crucial facts, which are apparent on the face of the record. The charge against the petitioner is that the petitioner signed a higher estimation for the repair work to be undertaken for the school building by including a work amounting to Rs.14138/-, which is relatable to painting of the black board of the school, which was not required.
3. The explanation given by the petitioner/delinquent is that at the time of preparation of estimate, the black board required repainting and therefore, it was included in estimate. In the meanwhile, the parents-teachers association, on its own, painted the black board on 22.9.2007 i.e. 19 days after submitting the estimation. Thereafter, the executive engineer inspected the school premises on 30.10.2007 and based on the inspection, a revised estimation was prepared on 31.10.2007 excluding the amount to be spent for painting the black board. The work was executed and the sum of Rs.14,138/- towards painting of black boards was not spent. There is therefore no loss to the department.
4. The explanation as above given by the petitioner was rejected by the Collector and the appellate authority merely on the ground that the delinquent officer counter signed the higher estimation, which work was not required and therefore, she was negligent.
5. This finding is fallacious as on the date of preparing the estimation i.e. on 3.9.2007, when the painting of the black boards was not done. Therefore, the question of negligence , impropriety or lapse will not arise. This grave error on the part of the respondent authority is apparent on facts, which evidently show that petitioner’s estimate is prior to painting of the black board by Parents-Teachers Association. It cannot be said that it is a fault by no stretch of imagination. This error apparent in this case as above vitiates the entire proceedings. Therefore the finding of guilt and the punishment of Censure imposed is arbitrary, unreasonable, bad and without application of mind to relevant facts. The impugned proceedings are therefore liable to be set aside for the above stated reasons and is set aside. This writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
ra
To
1.The Commissioner of
Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj,
Chennai 600 051.
2. The District Collector,
Coimbatore