Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 4263 (MAD)

M. Sundaram v. The District Collector

2010-09-22

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2010
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner entered service as Panchayat Assistant in Krishnagiri Panchayat Union, Dharmapuri District, on 05.07.1977. Initially he was appointed as Part Time Panchayat Clerk at Dhandukanalli Village Panchayat, Dharmapuri District. His services were regularised by the respondent District Collector as Panchayat Assistant with effect from 01.01.1991. 2. While so, the respondent placed the petitioner under suspension by an order dated 29.01.2000 stating that an enquiry was contemplated against the petitioner as he committed grave irregularities. Thereafter, the respondent passed the impugned order dated 12.04.2000 terminating the petitioner from service without holding any enquiry. 3. The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.3116 of 2006 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking to quash the aforesaid order dated 12.04.2000 of the respondent. 4. While admitting the Original Application on 28.04.2000, the Tribunal granted interim stay. Pursuant to the order of interim stay, the petitioner continues in service. 5. On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.47241/2006. 6. The respondent filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. 7. Heard Mr.V.Suthakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.C.Devi, learned Government Advocate for the respondent. 8. The petitioner joined the service as Part Time Panchayat Clerk. The Government issued an order in G.O.(Ms) No.962, Rural Development (E-7) Department, dated 26.11.1990 regularising the services of the existing Part Time Panchayat Clerks as Panchayat Assistants. Accordingly, the service of the petitioner was regularised by the respondent with effect from 01.01.1991. The impugned order dated 12.04.2000 was passed by the respondent based on the report dated 10.12.1999 of the Director of Government Examinations stating that the educational certificates furnished by the petitioner was not genuine. The said adverse order dated 10.12.1999 was not furnished to the petitioner. Admittedly, no enquiry was conducted. Hence, the impugned order was passed in blatant violations of principles of natural justice. It is well settled that no adverse order could be passed against a person resulting in serious civil consequences, without hearing the concerned person. Hence, in my view, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. 9. Furthermore, Rule 6(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Establishment (Appointment and Punishment) Rules, 1965 framed under Sections 58(1) and 61 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958 provides only adequate knowledge to read and write Tamil as the qualification for the post under the Panchayat. Hence, in my view, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. 9. Furthermore, Rule 6(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Establishment (Appointment and Punishment) Rules, 1965 framed under Sections 58(1) and 61 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958 provides only adequate knowledge to read and write Tamil as the qualification for the post under the Panchayat. Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Establishment (Appointment and Punishment) Rules, 1965 is extracted hereunder: "6. Appointment of staff.- (1) No person shall be appointed - (a) to be a public health subordinate except in consultation with the District Health Officer; (b) to a post in the water-works and drainage department, the maximum salary of which is not less than fifty rupees per mensem, except with the previous approval of the Chief Engineer (Public Health Engineering and Municipal Works) and in case he is already a holder of a technical post in the Town Planning Department, except also with the previous approval of the Director of Town-Planning; (c) to a technical post in the Town – Planning department, except with the approval of the Director of Town – Planning and in case he is already a holder of a post in the water – works or the drainage department except also with the previous approval of the Chief Engineer (Public Health Engineering and Municipal Works). (2) No person shall be appointed to any post under the panchayat unless he possesses an adequate knowledge to read and write Tamil." 10. The reliance placed on by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in P.SEKAR S/O.PONNAN VS. THE REGISTRAR, TAMIL NADU ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL reported in 2008 WRIT L.R. 902 also squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the said case, the person, who was employed as Flock Man in the Animal Husbandry Department produced a fake certificate, as if he passed S.S.L.C and claimed promotion to the post of Live Stock Inspector. Based on the certificate, he got promotion. Ultimately, it was found that the certificate was a bogus one. He was removed from service after holding an enquiry. The Division Bench of this Court found that the petitioner therein produced a fake certificate. The Division Bench interfered in the order of removal and reinstated the petitioner therein as Flock Man, as Flock Man did not require S.S.L.C. Qualification. Ultimately, it was found that the certificate was a bogus one. He was removed from service after holding an enquiry. The Division Bench of this Court found that the petitioner therein produced a fake certificate. The Division Bench interfered in the order of removal and reinstated the petitioner therein as Flock Man, as Flock Man did not require S.S.L.C. Qualification. The said judgment squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of this case. 11. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.