Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1994 (MAD)

E. Gurusamy v. District Collector

2014-07-07

T.S.SIVAGNANAM

body2014
Judgment 1. The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the first respondent to take appropriate action as against the fourth respondent as per the provisions contemplated under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayath Act, 1994. 2. The petitioner who is a resident of the panchayath and registered Contractor of the Panchayath, submitted a representation stating that there was a large scale irregularities in the implementation of Mahathma Gandhi National Rural Employment 100 days Scheme. The petitioner went before the Grievance Redressal Officer, MGNREGS, Virudhunagar, and attended enquiry on 10.10.2013 stating that the payments have been made to certain persons who are not employed under the Scheme. Therefore, the recommendation is made for action against the Panchayat President and the Secretary. The petitioner further stated that the close family members of the fourth respondent have been given payment under the scheme those who are not worked. 3. The fourth respondent filed a counter stating that the prayer sought for by the petitioner is not maintainable. The petitioner has grievance since he was defeated by the respondent in the local body election conducted in 2011. Furthermore, the fourth respondent would state that the petitioner is a disgruntle person, since he was not allotted work by the panchayat, though he is a contractor. Further, it is admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent that the Grievance Redressal Officer has conducted an enquiry, and it was found that the Field Officer has wrongly entered the names of the persons. On such enquiry the payments made to seven persons to the tune of Rs.23,704/- have been recovered. Further, it is stated that the Field Officer has mistakenly entered the names of the alleged workers in the Muster Roll and the fourth respondent bonafidely disbursed the wages to those workers based on the Field Officer noting. 4. In the light of the above stand, it appears that the payments have been made to those who had not working and the amounts should be recovered. However, when the Grievance Redressal Officer has specifically pointed out this issue the District Collector should take note of the findings. The District Collector as a Inspector of Panchayats has to issue such a direction to the fourth respondent so as to avoid such issues in future. However, when the Grievance Redressal Officer has specifically pointed out this issue the District Collector should take note of the findings. The District Collector as a Inspector of Panchayats has to issue such a direction to the fourth respondent so as to avoid such issues in future. Therefore, the first respondent is directed to consider the report of the Grievance Redressal Officer and also take note of the submissions made by the fourth respondent stating that the amounts were bonafidely disbursed based on the Field Officer's mistake and the same is recovered and refunded to the Panchayat and pass appropriate orders on merits. 5. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.