A. Uma Rani vs The District Collector and The President, Annaicut Union

P.K. Misra, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the first respondent. There is no representation for the second respondent.

Petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal, passed by the second respondent.

Though several contentions have been raised, it is not necessary to deal with all the contentions, as the Writ Petition is to succeed on the

question, relating to jurisdiction of the second respondent, to pass the order of dismissal.

It is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed as a part-time Clerk under the Panchayat, of which second respondent is the President. The

contention of the petitioner is to the effect that, u/s 106 of The Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, the power to take disciplinary action against an officer

or servant under the service of Village Panchayat is vested with the Executive Authority or the Commissioner of the Chief Executive Officer.

u/s 2 (11) of the Act, the expression ''executive authority'' means, a person notified, as such, by Government u/s 83.

Section 83 of the Act reads thus :

Executive Authority of a Village Panchayat: The Government may, by notification, appoint any person, who shall, subject to such rules as may be

prescribed, exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Executive Authority of a Village Panchayat.

It is the specific case of the petitioner that the order has been passed by the President and not by the Executive Authority.

Except vaguely contending that the order of dismissal has been validly passed, no assertion has been made by the respondent in the counter nor

any material has been produced to show that, in fact, the second respondent has been notified as the Executive Authority of the Village Panchayat.

Learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the power has been vested with the President by a Government Order to take action

against an officer or a servant under the service of Village Panchayat. However, no such Government Order has been brought to my notice during

the course of hearing of the Writ Petition.

In the absence of any material, there is no other alternative except to quash the order of dismissal and the same is, accordingly, quashed. The

petitioner shall be reinstated and deemed to be continuing in service. All benefits available to the petitioner shall be extended. However, it is made

clear that it would be open for the respondents and other appropriate authorities to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law.

Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.