Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 721 (MAD)

A. Anjaladevi v. Block Development Officer

2012-02-10

R.SUDHAKAR

body2012
Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent in his proceeding No.7 dated 21.12.2001 and quash the same. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Clerk of the second respondent Panchayat, Manamadurai Union, by the first respondent in proceeding Na.Ka.B.4/3329/2001 dated 17.8.2001. The appointment was consequent to the vacancy that arose after retirement of one Shanmugasiva, who retired on 30.7.2001. This was based on resolution No.13 dated 6.8.2001 of the panchayat. Petitioner was working as a clerk in the said panchayat. All of sudden, by the impugned proceedings dated 21.12.2001, petitioner was temporarily removed from service. Petitioner states that the entire exercise was done due to vested interest and in violation of principles of natural justice. The reasons stated in the impugned order was that a resolution has been passed by the panchayat on 21.12.2001 for removal of the petitioner and in her place another person, by name Kuppusamy, son of Malaichamy, is appointed. Challenging the said order, the writ petition is filed. 3. At the time of admission, an interim order was passed staying the impugned proceedings and the same was made absolute on 17.4.2002. 4. A counter-affidavit is filed by the second respondent and the second respondent was called upon to place certain documents referred to in the counter-affidavit. However, on perusal of counter-affidavit and records of court, it is clear that no such records were produced. In any event, as per the counter-affidavit, it is clear that the panchayat council has passed a resolution, temporarily removing the petitioner from service which resolution has not been filed before this court. 5. From the impugned order, it is clear that the temporary removal has been ordered without issuing show cause notice, however, stating the reason for which she is temporarily removed. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to explain her case. On the contrary another person has been appointed in the very same order, which gives credence to the plea of vested interest and mala fide action of removal. 6. Petitioner refers to the Government's Letter No.43006/,5/2001-1 dated 20.11.2001 referring to G.O.No.225 Rural Development dated 15.10.1996 to state that the principles of natural justice should be followed, if action is initiated for removal of an employee of the panchayat for some reason. Apparently, it has not been followed. 6. Petitioner refers to the Government's Letter No.43006/,5/2001-1 dated 20.11.2001 referring to G.O.No.225 Rural Development dated 15.10.1996 to state that the principles of natural justice should be followed, if action is initiated for removal of an employee of the panchayat for some reason. Apparently, it has not been followed. The counter is silent on this plea. 7. In any event, the principles of natural justice is required to be followed in administrative actions which tend to affect the rights of persons. In the present case, petitioner has been duly appointed by the competent authority. Therefore, the temporary removal order should have been passed after issuing proper notice. The order of temporary removal has been passed arbitrarily, without issuing show cause notice and petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard. There is a gross violation of principles of natural justice, which renders the impugned order bad. 8. Further, in the impugned proceedings, certain irregularities has been pointed out by the authority. In the counter and even today it is not stated that action has been taken for the irregularities. This clearly establishes that the allegations are made only for the purpose of passing the temporary order of removal. If the conduct of the petitioner was not good enough resulting in temporary removal, then action as per law should have been initiated and it was not done and there was no restraint. Therefore, the temporary removal was only to remove the petitioner and appoint another person. Such act of the authorities is strongly deprecated by this Court. 9. For all the above reasons, the impugned order is set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.