Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2968 (MAD)

P. Kuppusamy v. District Collector, Tiruppur

2022-08-26

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.80/2013 regarding the appointment issued to the 4th respondent dated 27.5.2014 and quash the same and thereby direct the 2nd respondent to give effect to the appointment order of the petitioner dated 26.5.2014 in Na.Ka.No.80/13 to the post of the Operator of the Over Head Water Tank of Muthur Town Panchayat and consequently directing the 1st respondent to take departmental action against the 3rd respondent for tampering of record by abusing his official power.) 1. The writ on hand has been instituted to direct the respondents to give effect to the appointment order issued to the writ petitioner on 26.05.2014. 2. The petitioner states that he participated in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Over Head Water Tank Operator and he was selected. The petitioner appeared before the second respondent on 27.01.2014 for interview and the other candidates also appeared. The second respondent verified the records submitted by the writ petitioner and thereafter, issued an order of appointment in proceedings dated 26.05.2014, appointing the writ petitioner as Over Head Water Tank Operator. The order of appointment is enclosed at Page No.9 of the typed set of papers filed along with the writ petition, which reveals that the Executive Officer, Muthur Town Panchayat, Muthur, Tiruppur District signed the order of appointment. 3. The petitioner states that on 28.05.2014, he went to the office of the second respondent to join duty. But the second respondent informed the petitioner that one Smt.S.Latha / 4th respondent was appointed due to some political intervention and pressure and expressed his inability to accommodate the writ petitioner in the said post as per the order of appointment. The petitioner states that the second respondent refused to return the appointment order already issued to him on 26.05.2014 and further stated that no such appointment order was issued to him with a view to help the 4th respondent. The petitioner submitted an application under the R.T.I Act to the office of the second respondent on 09.07.2014, seeking note file and current file. The respondents have stated that the 4th respondent was appointed and she had joined duty and therefore, the petitioner cannot be accommodated in the said post. The petitioner submitted an application under the R.T.I Act to the office of the second respondent on 09.07.2014, seeking note file and current file. The respondents have stated that the 4th respondent was appointed and she had joined duty and therefore, the petitioner cannot be accommodated in the said post. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition. 4. The second respondent / The Executive Officer filed a counter affidavit, stating that no order of appointment has been issued to the writ petitioner through the office of the second respondent for the post of Non Provisional Government Overhead Tank Operator. It is specifically stated in the counter that the appointment order submitted by the writ petitioner before this Court dated 23.05.2014 is a bogus order, since no meeting was held on that specified date. In the event of no meeting held for approval of the appointment, selection and order of appointment cannot be issued to the writ petitioner. It is stated that the appointment order enclosed by the writ petitioner in the typed set of papers filed along with the writ petition is not a genuine one and fabricated. 5. It is contended by the respondents that the petitioner never visited the office of the second respondent Town Panchayat on 27.05.2014. In paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, the said statements are made by the respondents and the same are extracted hereunder: “5. It is submitted that the petitioner never visited the office of 2nd respondent Town Panchayat on 27.05.2014. In the event of his having not visited the office of Town Panchayat itself, his statement that he visited the office, that the appointment order was snatched away from him suddenly; that he was asked to come next day, are all far from truth. His statement as to the above act is silly. No such incident took place. The petitioner did not visit office of Town Panchayat on 28.05.2014. He never met the 2nd respondent. In the event of his not visiting the office and not having met the Executive Officer, his statement that Executive Officer had appointed Mrs.Latha, Daughter of Subramani, (R4) due to political influence, for the post of operator of overhead tank, is completely false and against truth. There is no truth in this statement. 6. He never met the 2nd respondent. In the event of his not visiting the office and not having met the Executive Officer, his statement that Executive Officer had appointed Mrs.Latha, Daughter of Subramani, (R4) due to political influence, for the post of operator of overhead tank, is completely false and against truth. There is no truth in this statement. 6. It is submitted that the appointment order alleged by the petitioner as issued on 23.05.2014 already has not been issued by this office. The petitioner had not stated when and through whom he obtained this appointment order. Further, it is false to state that we acted favourably for 4th respondent because the 4th respondent, who was unanimously selected by appointment committee of Muthur Town Panchayat, was issued by the appointment order after preparation of the same at the Town Panchayat. The current file and remark file relating to the Government Non Provisional Post of operator of overhead tank at Muthur Town Panchayat requested by writ petitioner under Right to Information Act 2005 were sent to the writ petitioner and acknowledgement obtained. 7. It is submitted that “A list of 5 persons was received from the office of the District Employment Officer, Tiruppur for the vacant post of operator of overhead tank operator in Muthur Town Panchayat and one S.Latha, Daughter of Subramani belonging to Adi-dravidar community (Sub-caste- Arundadhiyar) was selected for the post of operator of overhead tank unanimously by Muthur Town Panchayat appointment Committee as per TPD/1999F/10005363 dated 07.07.1999, on the basis of seniority in the list the registration of employment exchange office above named. Further, I also humbly submit that no appointment order was issued to petitioner from this office.” 8. It is further submitted that the copy of order of appointment issued to Mrs.S.Latha, Daughter of Subramani (R4) selected by the Appointment Committee of Town Panchayat in the current file and notes file (Na.Ka.No.80/2013) sought for under the Right to Information Act by the writ petitioner was issued to writ petitioner along with file. 9. It is further submitted that the allegation made by the petitioner with respect to the appointment order is false and the order issued to the 4th respondent is issued by the appointment committee of Town Panchayat. The person who has not been approved by Appointment Committee cannot be issued appointment order. 9. It is further submitted that the allegation made by the petitioner with respect to the appointment order is false and the order issued to the 4th respondent is issued by the appointment committee of Town Panchayat. The person who has not been approved by Appointment Committee cannot be issued appointment order. The order issued to the 4th respondent is the genuine one and the order enclosed by the petitioner is falsely fabricated copy which is false and different from the original and also there is no seal in the copy of the petitioners appointment order.” 6. The above statements of the second respondent reveals that no order of appointment was issued to the writ petitioner and the 4th respondent / Mrs.S.Latha was appointed and she had joined duty and working for the past about 8 years. 7. The 4th respondent/Mrs.S.Latha also filed a counter affidavit, stating that she was appointed properly and allowed to join duty and is working for the past about 8 years. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent/Mr.Louis, who was holding the post of Executive Officer appeared before this Court and made a submission that no appointment order was issued in favour of the writ petitioner. This Court directed the said Mr.Louis to be present, who in turn, appeared before this Court and made a statement that his signature is the same, but he has not issued any appointment order in favour of the writ petitioner. Though the signature of the third respondent is admitted by him, he made a statement that no appointment order was issued in favour of the writ petitioner and he did not know how his signature was manipulated for the purpose of appointment order. 9. The said Mr.Louis/3rd respondent attained the age of Superannuation and retired from service. However, he has clearly stated that no appointment order was issued in favour of the writ petitioner and the manner in which his signature was manipulated, was also not known to him. 10. In view of the contradictory statements by the writ petitioner, third respondent/Mr.Louis, erstwhile Executive Officer and the second respondent/present Executive Officer, this Court directed the authorities to find out the truth and initiate appropriate action. Files were produced before this Court and as per the files, no appointment order was issued in favour of the writ petitioner. 10. In view of the contradictory statements by the writ petitioner, third respondent/Mr.Louis, erstwhile Executive Officer and the second respondent/present Executive Officer, this Court directed the authorities to find out the truth and initiate appropriate action. Files were produced before this Court and as per the files, no appointment order was issued in favour of the writ petitioner. Since there are doubtful circumstances and allegations of fraud and manipulations are brought to the notice of this Court, this Court directed the authorities to initiate all appropriate actions. Accordingly, the second respondent/present Executive Officer registered a police complaint in FIR.No.317 dated 07.08.2022 before Vellakoil Police Station, Tirupur District. The investigations are in progress. 11. This Court is of the considered opinion that the very order of appointment enclosed by the writ petitioner in the typed set of papers along with the writ petition itself was disputed by the authorities and they have come out with the counter affidavit that no such appointment order was issued to the writ petitioner. The third respondent, who was holding the post of Executive Officer during the relevant point of time also made a statement that the writ petitioner was not appointed and no such appointment order was issued and the appointment order was fabricated one. In this regard, the second respondent rejected the complaint, which is under investigation by the competent police authorities. Under these circumstances, it is for the petitioner to establish his innocence or otherwise in the manner known to law. 12. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kangeyam Sub Division, Tiruppur District, also filed a status report, stating that the criminal case has already been registered and the investigation is pending and other connected parties are to be enquired in this regard. Under these circumstances, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kangeyam Sub-Division, Tirupur District is directed to proceed with the investigation by following the procedures as contemplated under law. 13. However, in view of the fact that the genuinity of the appointment order is in dispute, such disputes cannot be resolved in a writ proceedings and further, the investigations are also in progress. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as such sought for in the writ petition. 14. 13. However, in view of the fact that the genuinity of the appointment order is in dispute, such disputes cannot be resolved in a writ proceedings and further, the investigations are also in progress. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as such sought for in the writ petition. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that in the matter of appointment of Over Head Water Tank Operator, some political persons have involved and there was a demand and acceptance of bribe in this regard. 15. However, it is for the parties to give their respective statement before the competent police during investigation and they are at liberty to place all the facts and circumstances and the documents before the competent authorities. 16. With these observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.