Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the resolution passed by the Ulagankathan Panchayat No. No.149/2005 dated 24.06.2005 with the consequential relief of reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Hereditary Village Munsif. The post of Hereditary Village Munsif was abolished by the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.962, Rural Development dated 28.11.1990. The petitioner was thereafter appointed as Panchayat Assistant for collection of property tax and other taxes on behalf of the Ulagankathan Panchayat on a consolidated pay of Rs.400/-. 3. The petitioner joined duties on 01.01.1991. The petitioner was drawing the salary of Rs.1,396/- (Rupees One Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Six only) after render 15 years of service. On account of non payment of salary since June, 2002, the petitioner filed representation on 19.07.2004 with respondent no.1 with copies to respondent nos.2 and 3. The respondent no.3 directed the 4th respondent to take steps to audit the accounts of the 5th respondent Panchayat and ensure disbursement of 25 months' salary to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner filed W.P.No.20551 of 2005 and W.P.No.5637 of 2007, claiming investigation of allegations against respondent no.5. The submission of petitioner is that this angered respondent no.5, which resulted in not permitting the petitioner to perform his duties with effect from 2005. 5. In pursuance to the direction, issued by this Court in W.P.No.5637 of 2007, the Assistant Commissioner, Panchayat wrote to the District Collector to consider reinstatement of the petitioner as Village Assistant. This order was passed in view of the direction issued by this Court to hold enquiry against respondent no.6. 6. It is not disputed, that on enquiry the allegations levelled by petitioner against respondent no.6, were found to be baseless. 7. The case of petitioner is that respondent no.5 engaged Mrs.Senbagavalli in his place, so as to prevent the authorities from reinstating the petitioner. It is surprising, that the petitioner, for the reasons best known, has not challenged the appointment of Mrs.Senbagavalli, nor she is impleaded as party to the writ petition. 8. It is submitted by the petitioner, that the resolution passed to terminate the service of petitioner is in violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed by the Government in respect of the service matters. (However no instructions of State Government laying down procedure for enquiry, have been placed on record). 8. It is submitted by the petitioner, that the resolution passed to terminate the service of petitioner is in violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed by the Government in respect of the service matters. (However no instructions of State Government laying down procedure for enquiry, have been placed on record). It is the submission of petitioner, that though the petitioner has the remedy of appeal against the order, but impugned order was not served on the petitioner, so that the petitioner could not avail the statutory remedies. It is not disclosed as to why petitioner did not challenge the order of termination instead of filing writs against respondent no.6. 9. It is submitted, that because of the litigation and action taken by petitioner against the erring corrupt officers, he was victimized and was illegally prevented from performing his duties. 10. It is also pleaded, that inspite of direction by the 2nd respondent to disburse the salary to petitioner, he was not paid the salary. It is also the case of the petitioner, that during draught period from 2002 to 2003, for digging bore well, laying pipeline for drinking water and supplying drinking water through tanker lorry to the village people, he had spent a sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only), which was entered in 'M' book. This amount was not refunded to petitioner. It is not disclosed under what authority he spent this amount, nor any proof of this expenditure is placed on record. It is also not disclosed as to what steps were taken to recover this amount. 11. It is also submitted, that Rs.2,12,046/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Twelve Thousand and Forty Six only), was collected as provisional tax from M/s. Arcot Textile Mills Ltd., which resulted in S.T.C.No.366 of 2002 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi, and that he had to spend about Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards legal fees and expenses. This amount has also not been refunded to petitioner. There are no details of the expenses, nor it is disclosed whether this amount was spent to prosecute cases on behalf of Panchayat Union or for his private litigation, and what is the base of this claim. 12. This amount has also not been refunded to petitioner. There are no details of the expenses, nor it is disclosed whether this amount was spent to prosecute cases on behalf of Panchayat Union or for his private litigation, and what is the base of this claim. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned resolution of the Panchayat Union in terminating the services of petitioner, on the ground of jurisdiction, as the competent authority to remove the employee of Panchayat Union, is the Commissioner, and not the Panchayat Union. It is contended, that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 13. This plea cannot be accepted. The pleadings show, that the petitioner was not appointed in the cadre of Panchayat Union, he admittedly was selected by the Director of Rural Development as Panchayat Assistant for collection of property tax and other taxes on a consolidated salary of Rs.400/-, which was raised to Rs.1396/-. 14. The Director of Rural Development is not competent for appointment for Panchayat Union under Section 106 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. 15. The writ also suffers from vice of delay and laches. Admittedly, the resolution, removing the petitioner from the post, was passed on 24.06.2005. Whereas the writ petition was filed on 29.10.2011, i.e. beyond the period of limitation. Even though petitioner was fully aware of this order, as in the enquiry against respondent no.6, petitioner claimed reinstatement in service. It has been authoritatively laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that even void orders are to be challenged within three years. Once the Civil Suit to challenge the order was barred by limitation, the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition, to challenge the resolution dated 24.06.2005 in the year 2011. 16. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that the copy of the order was not served on the petitioner cannot be accepted, inasmuch as it is admitted case of petitioner, that the petitioner had filed W.P.No.5637 of 2007, by levelling allegations against respondent no.6 with regard to financial irregularities, on the basis of which, an enquiry was conducted, where the petitioner had claimed his reinstatement in service. It is also pleaded case of the petitioner, that Mrs.Senbagavalli was appointed in his place. 17. It is also not disputed, that in the enquiry, allegations of petitioner were found to be baseless and respondent no.6 was exonerated of the allegations. It is also pleaded case of the petitioner, that Mrs.Senbagavalli was appointed in his place. 17. It is also not disputed, that in the enquiry, allegations of petitioner were found to be baseless and respondent no.6 was exonerated of the allegations. This clearly shows, that inspite of the fact, that the petitioner was fully aware of his removal from service, but he did not take steps to challenge the order, and adopted unfair procedure to seek reinstatement by levelling allegations against respondent no.6, regarding financial irregularities, so as to force him to reinstate the petitioner in service under threat of action against him. 18. Even now, the petitioner has again claimed to have spent Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) for supply of drinking water without disclosing under which authority of law, the petitioner had spent this money, as admittedly, the petitioner was appointed merely for collection of property tax and other taxes on behalf of the Panchayat. Supply of drinking water was not the job of the petitioner. This amount is said to have been spent between 2002-2003, whereas the writ petition is filed in the year 2011. The petitioner has also mentioned about recovery of some professional tax, which clearly shows, that the petitioner is in the habit of making vague and unsubstantiated allegations. It is the admitted case of petitioner, that the post held by the petitioner has been offered to Mrs.Senbagavalli, but for the reasons best known to the petitioner, he has not challenged her appointment, nor she has been impleaded as party to this writ petition. 19. This writ petition, therefore, suffers from vice of delay and laches, therefore in view of settled law, that even void order can be challenged within three years, the writ is not competent. 20. No merits. Dismissed. 21. No costs.