Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3354 (MAD)

Karuppayee Ammal v. District Collector

2015-10-12

R.SUBBIAH

body2015
RDER : The Writ Petition has been praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the respondents in pursuant to the impugned resolution dated 14.05.2012 on the file of the Vadakku Ilanthaikulam Panchayat Council, Kayathar Panchayat Union, Thoothukudi District and quash the same and further directing the respondents to conduct a fresh meeting regarding the proposal to remove the President. 2. The petitioner is functioning as the President of Vadakku Illanthaikulam Panchayat Union. In the said union, Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme for working a kanmoi was going on. On inspection by the Assistant Engineer, it came to light that out of 170 workers, (who are actually to be deployed) only 63 persons were present. Therefore, the first respondent by his notice dated 11.01.2012 directed the petitioner to submit his explanation to the charge stating that the petitioner failed to supervise the work under Employment Guarantee Scheme and thereby causing monetary loss to the Panchayat. The petitioner also submitted his explanation to the first and second respondents refuting that there was no monetary loss. However, without considering the same, the first respondent directed the third respondent to conduct a meeting of the Panchayat council regarding the proposal to remove the petitioner from the post of President. 2.1. Accordingly, the third respondent by his notice dated 25.04.2012 directed the council members to attend the meeting on 14.05.2012 and to state their opinion on the proposal to remove the petitioner. In this connection, the meeting was conducted on 14.05.2012 in which ten members including the petitioner attended the said meeting. The third respondent read out to the members the notice of the first respondent and gave explanation and asked the members to express their support either to the notice or to the explanation. 2.2. While the situation stood thus, the Tahsildar instead of seeking a vote directed the members orally to express their support for the first respondent's notice or to the explanation. In that confusion, two members, viz. Mrs. Mahalakshmi and Mr. Shanmuganathan put their signature under the coloumn 'support' thinking that they were voting in support of the President. 2.2. While the situation stood thus, the Tahsildar instead of seeking a vote directed the members orally to express their support for the first respondent's notice or to the explanation. In that confusion, two members, viz. Mrs. Mahalakshmi and Mr. Shanmuganathan put their signature under the coloumn 'support' thinking that they were voting in support of the President. Only when the Tahsildar informed the Council that five members voted supporting the complaints and four members voted against the same and the said two members realised their mistakes and informed the third respondent they voted in favour of the petitioner and not in support of complaints. However, the third respondent expressed his inability to correct the mistake. On the next day, two persons even affirmed to an affidavit stating that they intended to support the petitioner but signed the minute thinking that the term 'support' was to express the support in favour of the petitioner. However, the third respondent has refused to correct the mistake and not prepared to conduct a fresh meeting. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court inclines to set aside the order dated 14.05.2012. Accordingly, the order impugned in this Writ Petition stands set aside by giving liberty to the third respondent to issue a fresh notice to convene a Meeting under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act for a proposal to remove the petitioner from the post of Presidentship and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs, consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.