Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1154 (MAD)

B. Saravanan v. District Collector Vellore

2014-06-05

T.RAJA

body2014
Judgment : 1. Mr.B.Saravanan, who was elected as President of Thellur Panchayat, Vellore District, aggrieved by the order passed by the District Collector, Vellore, the first respondent herein removing him from the post of President of Thellur Panchayat, has come to this Court challenging the same on the ground that the first respondent has not followed the mandatory conditions adumbrated under sub-section (8) of Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. 2. Mr.R.Margabandhu, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per sub-sections (2) & (8) of Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the Act’), since the Inspector of Panchayat, the first respondent herein, while taking steps to remove the elected president of a panchayat, must issue a charge sheet calling upon the said president to submit his explanation on all the charges and after receiving the explanation from the delinquent president, in the opinion of the Inspector of Panchayat, if the explanation offered was not satisfactory against the charges and available records, he shall direct the convening of a meeting by the Tahsildar and as soon as the meeting has commenced, the Tahsildar shall read to the village panchayat the notice of the Inspector and the explanation, if any, of the president and the proposal for removal of the president, for the consideration of which it has been convened. The learned counsel further submitted that since the above procedure for removal of president is clear and unambiguous that the Tahsildar, after convening the meeting, shall read to the village panchayat the notice of the Inspector and the explanation, if any, of the president and also the proposal for removal of the president, but the proposal of the Inspector of panchayat for removal has not been read out to the village panchayat, thereby the mandatory conditions adumbrated under sub-section (8) of Section 205 of the Act has been seriously violated, hence, the removal of the petitioner from the post of president of Thellur panchayat is illegal and the same is to be set aside. In support of his submissions, he has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in D.Bagyalakshmi v. The Secretary to Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Chennai and two others, 2011 (5) CTC 496 for the proposition that a reading of the proposal of the Inspector of Panchayat for removal of president at the village panchayat meeting is mandatory as per sub-section (8) of Section 205 of the Act. As this provision has been violated, for this clear violation, he pleaded that this Court has no other option but to interfere with the impugned proceedings of the respondents. 3. Again, while dealing with the charges levelled against the petitioner, the learned counsel submitted that all the five allegations levelled against the petitioner are trivial in nature, however, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation stating that in respect of Charge No.1, when there was an acute drinking water problem in his village, to meet the urgent necessity for providing drinking water facility to all the villages, the petitioner being the president, with the approval of the panchayat board and on proper voucher, spent a sum of Rs.1,31,610/-. As the demand for drinking water increased, the petitioner had to incur expenses over and above the permissible limit for the betterment and welfare of the village panchayat and the same will not attract removal proceedings as held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of K.Ramalingam v. The Secretary to Government, Department of Local Administration and others, 2011 (2) CTC 134 , wherein the Division Bench has held that the act of the president in incurring expenses over and above permissible limit would not attract the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 205 of the Act. Similarly, with regard to Charge No.2 alleging that the petitioner had spent Rs.8,000/- to remove the pump set motor from the bore-well by engaging crane pump set and the proper voucher was also obtained therefor showing the expenses, but this has not been properly considered. Moreover, Charge No.2 can never be construed as reasonable or acceptable. Similarly, with regard to Charge No.2 alleging that the petitioner had spent Rs.8,000/- to remove the pump set motor from the bore-well by engaging crane pump set and the proper voucher was also obtained therefor showing the expenses, but this has not been properly considered. Moreover, Charge No.2 can never be construed as reasonable or acceptable. Again in respect of Charge No.3 that the tax collected to the tune of Rs.71,737/- was not properly credited in proper account, he pleaded that when there is no allegation of either misappropriation or maladministration, the tax collected from the villagers was not remitted in proper account can never be an allegation warranting removal of the president. At the most, it can only be an irregularity. Moreover, the charge never says that the petitioner had misappropriated the said amount. 4. Again in respect of Charge No.4, it has been alleged that the employees provident fund of the panchayat board was not remitted, whereas the panchayat’s contribution for all the employees were directly remitted in the panchayat account. With regard to Charge No.5, it was alleged that the records were not maintained, but the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation that all the records were properly maintained and entered accounts at the appropriate time. But the explanation to the above said charges have not been properly considered and directly the order of removal of the elected president, without even reading out the proposal of the Inspector of panchayat, has been made. Concluding his arguments, he has stated that it is an underlying principle that the Tahsildar of the jurisdiction concerned, while dealing with the matter of taking views of the panchayat, after the amendment of the provision in the year 1999 to sub-section (8) to Section 205, must read the proposal for the removal of the president of the village panchayat at the meeting and admittedly, in the present case, when there is no semblance of proof that such procedure was followed by the authorities concerned, the method undertaken by the respondents for removal of the petitioner from the post of president is ultra vires the mandatory provisions under sub-section (8) of Section 205 of the Act. On this basis, he prayed for interference with the impugned order. 5. On this basis, he prayed for interference with the impugned order. 5. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the District Collector, Vellore, the first respondent herein opposing the prayer that after the petitioner Mr.B.Saravanan was elected as the president of Thellur village panchayat, right from the beginning, he has been acting independently and misusing the powers of the village panchayat president. Therefore, on receipt of the complaint containing the allegations, the first respondent framed charges and issued a show cause notice on 29.10.2012 under Section 205 of the Act mentioning why the petitioner should not be disqualified from the post of president of Thellur village panchayat. The petitioner also submitted his explanation on 15.11.2012. But the first respondent was not satisfied with the explanation offered by him, consequently, the District Collector forwarded the charges and the explanation offered by the petitioner with a direction to the second respondent-Tahsildar, Thellur Taluk to convene the panchayat meeting so as to ascertain the views of the members of Thellur panchayat on the said charges against him. Accordingly, the second respondent-Tahsildar convened the Thellur village panchayat meeting on 5.3.2013 as per Section 205(2) of the Act to ascertain the views of the members of the village panchayat on the said charges against the petitioner. After the meeting was convened, the Tahsildar read out the notice of the Inspector and also the explanation of the petitioner along with the proposal to the members of the village panchayat. Out of 12 ward members, 9 members disagreed with the explanation of the petitioner and only 3 members accepted the explanation. Once again a second show cause notice was issued, for which the petitioner also offered his explanation on 3.5.2013. Only thereafter, based on the findings of the Tahsildar, the District Collector issued the order for removal of the petitioner from the post of president of Thellur village panchayat. Therefore, there is no infirmity or irregularity in the order of removal passed by the first respondent, hence, on this basis, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Therefore, there is no infirmity or irregularity in the order of removal passed by the first respondent, hence, on this basis, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Again, continuing his arguments, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents stated that the petitioner had committed number of irregularities while giving approval for layouts, without obtaining prior permission from the Director of Town and Country Planning in Ganapathy Nagar extension in Survey No.314/1A, 1B to an extent of one acre and the size of the streets, lanes, pathways formed in the layout approved by the petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions imposed by the Director of Town and Country Planning, as per the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Buildings Rules, 1997 issued in G.O.Ms.No.255, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (C2) Department dated 18.8.97. That apart, the petitioner has violated one another condition that before approval of any layout is accorded, ten percent of the total area of the land has to be donated by the land owner who seeks approval by way of settlement deed. The said ten percent of the land shall be for provision of amenities to the residents of the layout for the purpose of park, playground and recreation club. But unfortunately, the petitioner had deliberately violated the said procedure and wrongly granted approval for the entire extent of area in the layout. The said irregularity committed by him shows that he has done the same for his own benefit. That apart, he has also not informed the authorities for layout approval as per the conditions stipulated in paragraph-35 of the said G.O.Ms.No.255 dated 18.8.97. Besides, for supplying drinking water to the inhabitants of the village, the petitioner had spent the panchayat funds without obtaining the consent of the Technical Officer as per the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.84, Rural Development Department dated 5.5.98 and G.O.Ms.No.63, Rural Development Department dated 29.6.2006. When the above Government Orders clearly state that it is mandatory on the part of the president of the village panchayat to obtain consent of the Technical Officer to meet out the expenditure for power pump motor and hand pump over and above Rs.7,500/- and Rs.600/- respectively per power pump motor and hand pump per annum, violating the said mandatory condition, he spent Rs.1,31,610/- for the water supply works without any vouchers. As it is over and above the permissible limit of expenditure, he was rightly asked to submit his explanation and the explanation also was found to be unacceptable. Therefore, no fault can be found against the Inspector of Panchayat in removing the president. 7. Mr.G.Sankar, the Vice President of Thellur panchayat and Mr.P.Natarajan, Mr.K.Mohan, Mr.S.Nanchil, Mr.V.Ravi, Mr.K.Sekar, Mrs.A.Kokila, Mrs.S.Devi and Mrs.G.Kumari, viz., the ward members of Thellur village panchayat have also filed vacate stay petitions before this Court stating that there is no violation of any of the mandatory conditions as pleaded by the petitioner, more particularly, there is no violation of any conditions mentioned under sub-section (8) of Section 205 of the Act. According to them, after the Tahsildar sent a notice of meeting to all the elected members including the petitioner to be held on 5.3.2013, the vice president and all other ward members had attended the meeting at 11.00 a.m., on 5.3.2013. At that time, apart from the Tahsildar, two Deputy Tahsildars, Revenue Inspector along with the officials from Collector’s office were present. Only then the Tahsildar read over the notice of the District Collector indicating the charges as against the president and the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter, the Tahsildar further read over the proposal for the removal of president. After reading over the notice, the explanation and the proposal for the removal, the Tahsildar had asked each and every ward member independently to elicit his/her views in respect of the proposal for removal of the president. In this process, the Vice President and other members had informed the Tahsildar that the explanation given by the president was not satisfactory, hence, action may be taken against him. The Tahsildar also, recording these events in his minutes book, ended the meeting and subsequently the District Collector had passed the order of removal dated 22.6.2013 removing the writ petitioner from the post of president. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has come to this Court alleging that the mandatory conditions viz., the reading over the proposal of the Inspector as contemplated under sub-section (8) of Section 205 has not been complied with. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has come to this Court alleging that the mandatory conditions viz., the reading over the proposal of the Inspector as contemplated under sub-section (8) of Section 205 has not been complied with. The said ground taken by the petitioner is absolutely unwarranted and untenable, for the reason that when the petitioner in his affidavit has accepted that the Tahsildar had convened the meeting and thereafter the charges with explanation given by the president were read over on 5.3.2013, the petitioner has wrongly stated that the third ingredient as to the Inspector?s proposal to the members was not read over. Restating his contentions, the respective learned counsel appearing for the Vice President and the other ward members submitted that on 5.3.2013 the Tahsildar had not only read over the notice of the Inspector and the explanation, but also the proposal for removal of the president and the same were also recorded by the Tahsildar in the minutes of the meeting dated 5.3.2013. That clearly shows that the writ petitioner has filed a false affidavit in this Court alleging violation of the mandatory conditions. If the argument as to the violation of the mandatory conditions is accepted, a wrong person will be allowed to continue and he will swindle the public money and thereby will cause more loss to the Government. On this basis they prayed for vacating the stay and dismissing the writ petition. 8. In the light of the contentions and rival contentions made by the respective parties, the only issue for consideration by this Court is as to whether the District Collector, the first respondent herein, who had passed the impugned order of removing the petitioner from the post of president of Thellur village panchayat, has followed the three mandatory conditions adumbrated under sub-section (8) of Section 205 of the Act. In this context, it is more useful to extract sub-section (8) of Section 205 of the Act and the same reads as under:- “(8) As soon as the meeting convened under this section is commenced, the Tahsildar, shall read to the Village Panchayat the notice of the Inspector and the explanation if any, of the President and the proposal for the removal of the President, for the consideration of which it has been convened.” 9. A cursory reading of the above section shows that the Tahsildar, after convening the meeting, shall read to the members of the village panchayat the notice of the Inspector containing the charges levelled against the delinquent president. Secondly, the same Tahsildar shall also read to the village panchayat the explanation, if any, of the president and thirdly the proposal for removal of the president for consideration of which the meeting has been convened. It is true that this Court in D.Bagyalakshmi v. The Secretary to Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Chennai and two others, 2011 (5) CTC 496 has held that it is an underlying principle of the jurisdictional Tahsildar concerned, while dealing with the matter of taking the views of the panchayat, after the amendment of the provision in the year 1999, to read the proposal for removal of the president of the panchayat at the meeting and when such procedure is not followed by the authorities concerned, the method undertaken by the respondents for removal of the president is to be held ultra vires the mandatory provisions under sub-section (8) of Section 205 and for this clear violation, this Court has no other option but to interfere with the impugned proceedings of the respondents. 10. In the present case, as highlighted above, the Tahsildar, in the meeting held on 5.3.2013, should have read over the notice of the Inspector, the explanation, if any, given by the president and the proposal of the Inspector for removal of the president for consideration of the ward members of the panchayat. In fact, paragraph-13 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the writ petition admits the holding of such meeting by the Tahsildar on 5.3.2013, wherein the Tahsildar had read over the charges and the explanation given by the president, however, the petitioner has stated therein that the third ingredient viz., the Inspector’s proposal for removal for the president was not read over to the members of the panchayat. While so, the copy of the minutes recorded by the Tahsildar at the time of holding of meeting on 5.3.2013 filed by the Additional Government Pleader may be extracted as follows:- “TAMIL” 11. While so, the copy of the minutes recorded by the Tahsildar at the time of holding of meeting on 5.3.2013 filed by the Additional Government Pleader may be extracted as follows:- “TAMIL” 11. A careful reading of the above copy of the minutes recorded by the Tahsildar dated 5.3.2013 clearly shows that the Tahsildar, on the direction issued by the District Collector to hold the meeting to ascertain the views of the ward members of the Thellur village panchayat, had convened the meeting on 5.3.2013 at 11.00 a.m. In the said meeting, the Tahsildar has read over the charges and the explanation given by the president along with the proposal for removal of the petitioner from the post of president for consideration for which the meeting was convened. Once again a reading of the proposal of the Inspector of Panchayat to the ward members has been further confirmed in the impugned order. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the underlying principle as adumbrated under sub-section (8) of Section 205 that the Tahsildar of the jurisdiction concerned, while dealing with the matter for taking the views of the panchayat, after the amendment of the provision in the year 1999, must read the proposal for removal of the president of the village panchayat at the meeting, has been duly complied with. In view of the same, the writ petition fails. Moreover, even for the sake of arguments, if the allegation of the petitioner that the proposal of the District Collector for removal was not read over along with the charge and the explanation is accepted, resultantly, if a direction is given to the respondents to redo the process from the place where the alleged infraction in not reading the proposal has taken place, the said direction is not going to serve the purpose any more, in view of the fact that out of 13 elected ward members, 9 members have disagreed with the explanation given by the petitioner and agreed for removal of the petitioner from the post of president. Therefore, as any such direction also would only prove to be an empty formality, this Court, rejecting the case of the petitioner that any proposal of the District Collector was not read over by the Tahsildar, is inclined to dismiss the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1,2,5 & 6 of 2013 are also dismissed. No costs.