AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Dhanapalan, J.—By consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal.
Heard Mr. J. Thilagaraj, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Ms. V.M. Velumani, learned Spl.G.P. appearing for the
Respondents.
A communication of the third Respondent, dated 1.7.2011 in Na.Ka. No. Aa1/4182/20121, to convene a meeting of the Village Panchayat u/s
205(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (for short, ''the Act'') has been called in question, seeking to quash the same.
According to the Petitioner, he was elected as a President of Neyveli Village Panchayat, Thiruvallur Taluk and District by the mandate of the
people in the Elections held in 2006 for the third time consecutively. Initially, the post was earmarked for Scheduled Caste candidates, but in the
year 2006, the post became a general one and even then, he was elected as Village Panchayat President. It is the Petitioner''s claim that this will
bear ample testimony to the name, fame and support that I enjoy with the people cutting across caste, creed, language and religion. Ever since
assuming the charge, the Petitioner has been executing his responsibilities to the Village Panchayat to the gratification of the local populace. The
members of the Village Panchayat were extending full co-operation to the Petitioner in all the activities of the Village Panchayat.
While so, the Inspector of Panchayats/District Collector issued a show cause notice dated 27.8.2009, u/s 205(1) of the Act, seeking his
explanation on some alleged charges, upon a report submitted by the Assistant Director (Panchayats), dated 27.4.2009. The chargers pertain only
to procedural violations and there was no charge of misappropriation, embezzlement or personal monetary gains.
It is the Petitioner''s case that the Petitioner is beyond any complaint of nepotism or favouritism and the Petitioner is functioning and carried out
all the activities in a pragmatic manner and never intended to utilise the post of the Village President as a tool of money making. He bagged a high
reputation among the local populace for his self-less service and for deriving at a fast and effective redressal of the grievances of the people. The
sheer enthusiasm and the keenness in raising up to the expectations of the people would have sometimes entailed in innocuous deviation or
digression from the procedure, and it is certainly not due to any wilful, vested, mala-fide or ulterior motive.
There are several authorities like Extension Officer, Deputy Block Development Officer and the Block Development Officer to oversee and
scrutinise the activities of the Panchayat and so far, none of them have pinpointed any discrepancy or deviation of the procedure or any other
irregularity. In that situation, for the charges framed against him, he submitted his explanation to the abovesaid show cause notice on 9.10.2009
clearly repudiating the charges levelled against him and given convincing explanation for the charges.
Now, almost after 21 months from the date of submission of his explanation, the third Respondent-Tahsildar issued the impugned
communication dated 1.7.2011, calling for the convening of the meeting of the Village Panchayat to ascertain the views of the members as per
Section 205(2) of the Act. The inordinate and unexplained delay in convening the meeting renders it vitiated, since the said impugned
communication is a cryptic one and does not refer to either the show cause notice issued by the Inspector of Panchayats nor the explanation
submitted by him. Whether the explanation was considered by the Inspector of Panchayats and whether he was satisfied or not with the same, is
not known from the impugned communication and it is vitiated for the reason that the intention of the authorities to remove him from the post of the
Village Panchayat is very obvious.
Further, without furnishing the show cause notice and the explanation submitted by the Petitioner, the Panchayat members would not be in a
position to express their clear views. The impugned communication does not say anything about the proposal to remove the President. As per
Section 205(4) of the Act, notice shall be served at least seven days before the convening of the meeting, but in this case, the notice was served
only on 1.7.2011 and the meeting was to be held on 7.7.2011. Therefore, this vitiates the impugned communication.
The Petitioner''s tenure comes to a close by the month of September 2011. The authorities have slept over the Petitioner''s explanation for 21
months and now they have chosen a time to convene the meeting of the Village Panchayat in such a way that the Petitioner shall be deprived of his
right to contest in the next Elections. Therefore, the delay caused serious prejudice to the Petitioner and the action taken by the third Respondent in
convening the meeting is certainly a prelude to his removal subsequently.
Hence, the Petitioner has challenged the impugned communication on the ground that there is inordinate delay of 21 months in convening the
meeting of the Village Panchayat and the reference to the said show cause notice, the explanation and also the proposal to remove the President,
are sine-qua-non for the communication to be issued by Tahsildar and the absence of reference to such vital materials vitiates the impugned
communication. As per Section 205(4) of the Act, there must be seven days clear notice required to be given for convening the meeting and the
impugned communication is passed without application of mind in a mechanical manner, and therefore, the Petitioner has sought for quashing of the
same.
The first Respondent-Inspector of Panchayats/District Collector, Thiruvallur District, for himself and on behalf of the other Respondents, has
filed the counter affidavit, inter-alia stating that the Petitioner is a Village Panchayat President of Neyveli Village, Thiruvallur District and during the
course of inspection on 16.4.2009, the Assistant Director of the Panchayats found that the Petitioner committed the following irregularities and the
acts that are unbecoming of the Panchayat President:
(i) Procuring street light materials without following G.O. Ms. No. 149, Rural Development Department, dated 16.7.1998 from a particular shop
for a sum of Rs. 1,81,246/-.
(ii) Expenditure incurred for water supply works to the tune of Rs. 85,333/-and the expenses were made contrary to G.O. No. 203, Rural
Development Department, dated 20.12.2007.
(iii) Amount spent was more than the approved allocation for the purpose of maintenance of sanitation and non-auctioning of the trees that were
removed to the tune of Rs. 27,150/-by violating G.O. Ms. No. 92, Rural Development Department, dated 26.3.1997.
(iv) Expenses incurred in water supply works to the tune of Rs. 24,050/-by violating G.O. Ms. No. 84, Rural Development Department, dated
15.5.1998 and G.O. Ms. No. 63, Rural Development Department, dated 29.6.2006 and (v) Expenditure was made without connected sub-
vouchers to the tune of Rs. 8,440/-.
In all, the total value is Rs. 3,26,399/-.
Based on the inspection report of the Assistant Director (Panchayats), the Inspector of Panchayats issued notice u/s 205(1) of the Act to the
Petitioner in Ref.Na.Ka. No. 1692/09/A3, dated 27.8.2009. The Petitioner requested time to submit his reply vide his letter dated 12.9.2009 and
his request was acceded to by granting 15 days'' time, vide office letter Rc. No. 1692/2009/A3, dated 24.9.2009 and he submitted his reply on
15.10.2009. Since the Petitioner''s reply was not satisfactory in the opinion of the Inspector of Panchayats, he directed the Tahsildar to convene a
meeting to ascertain the view of the Village Panchayat, vide office letter Rc. No. 1692/09/A3, dated 28.2.2011. Pursuant to the same, the third
Respondent, vide letter No. Na.Ka.Aa1/4182/2011, dated 1.7.2011 issued the notice (impugned communication) to convene the meeting on
7.7.2011.
As per Section 205(4) of the Act, it is clearly mentioned that the copy of the notice of the meeting shall be caused to be delivered to the
President and to all the members of the Village Panchayat and so, it is not necessary to mention about the show cause notice and the explanation
submitted by the President in the meeting notice. As per Section 205(8) of the Act, the Tahsildar has to read the show cause notice and the
explanation of the President and the proposal for the removal of the President during the Panchayat meeting convened to ascertain the views of the
Panchayat. Hence, the averments of the Petitioner are not sustainable.
According to the Respondents, it is true that the communication given by the Tahsildar is not in consonance with Sections 205(3) and (4) of the
Act. In the communication sent by the Tahsildar, appropriate time has not been mentioned as contemplated under the Act and hence, the same is
not sustainable. The third Respondent postponed the Panchayat meeting fixed on 7.7.2011 due to unavoidable circumstances. In the meanwhile,
this Court in W.P. No. 16067 of 2011 passed interim order on 7.7.2011 directing not to conduct the Panchayat meeting and in view of the same,
the Respondents could not proceed with the proceedings against the Petitioner and the charges levelled against the Petitioner are serious in nature
and involves huge amount of money and if the Respondents are restrained from proceeding further, the Petitioner may indulge in the acts that are
unbecoming of the Panchayat President, since his tenure is on its last leg. Due to various administrative reasons, the charges made against the
Petitioner could not be finalized and therefore, the averment that mere delay vitiates the proceedings, is false and misleading.
It is to be mentioned that the tacit admission of the Petitioner would show that he was well aware of his misconducts, but still terms it as though
they are minor and frivolous in nature and the intention of the Petitioner is to stall further proceedings and if really the Petitioner is sure of his case,
then he may face it, as and when fresh notice is issued for convening the meeting to get the view of the Panchayat. The Respondents pray for
dismissal of the Writ Petition.
To the above counter affidavit, the Petitioner has filed a rejoinder, stating that the show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on 27.8.2009
and he submitted his detailed explanation to the show cause notice on 9.10.2009 explaining everything elaborately and repudiated the charges
levelled against him and also given convincing explanation to the charges. Now, almost after 21 months from the date of submission of his
explanation, the impugned communication is issued. This inordinate delay has not been properly explained in the counter affidavit. The averment
that he did not submit the records from 2009 to 2011 is shown as the reason for the delay, which is highly unacceptable on the ground that an
ordinary Village Panchayat President could not dodge an authority like the District Collector for such a long time without submitting the records.
Apart from this, it is submitted by the Petitioner that there are several authorities like the Extension Officer, Deputy Block Development Officer and
Block Development Officer to oversee and scrutinise the day-to-day activities of the Panchayat. If at all the Petitioner was prolonging in
submission of the records, they could have taken action against him and all the records of the Panchayat are under the purview, access and control
of the above said Officers. This being the case, putting the blame for the said inordinate delay in initiating action, on the Petitioner''s shoulders beats
all logic. The Petitioner has also enclosed to the rejoinder the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Thiruvallur, dated 18.7.2011 in Na.Ka. No.
4182/2011/A1, in respect of another meeting which was to be convened on 28.7.2011 at 11 a.m.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in his submissions, strenuously contended that u/s 205(4) of the Act, a copy of the notice of the meeting
shall be caused to be delivered to the President and to all the members of the Village Panchayat by the Tahsildar at least seven days before the
date of the meeting and in this case, the notice by the Tahsildar was dated 1.7.2011 for a meeting scheduled to be held on 7.7.2011, is not in
compliance with the provisions of law and therefore, the impugned communication is vitiated in law.
He further submitted that the explanation of the Petitioner was submitted on 15.10.2009 and the authorities have kept quiet for 21 months and
thereafter, now proceeded to issue the impugned communication with an inordinate and unexplained delay and hence, the impugned
communication is not sustainable in law.
Per contra, learned Spl.G.P. for the Respondents contended that the delay is due to administrative reasons and hence, the charges levelled
against the Petitioner could not be finalised and also due to the tactics adopted by the Petitioner in sending the records to the first Respondent for
finalising the issue. However, the Respondents have issued the impugned communication of the Tahsildar, which is not in consonance with Sections
205 (3) and (4) of the Act and therefore, in the communication sent by the Tahsildar, the appropriate time has not been mentioned as
contemplated under the Act, and the third Respondent has postponed the Panchayat meeting. It is also placed on record that the subsequent
meeting proposed by the Respondents on 28.7.2011 has also not been proceeded, and therefore, the action of the Respondents cannot be found
faulted with.
I have heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the records and the relevant provisions of law.
Admittedly, the Petitioner is the President of Neyveli Village Panchayat elected by the mandate of the people in 2006 and he continued in the
same position and has been doing his duties. However, there was an inspection by the Assistant Director of Panchayats on 16.4.2009, in which he
found some commissions and omissions by the Petitioner and such irregularities are taken note of by the Respondents and charges were framed
against the Petitioner and a show cause notice u/s 205(1) of the Act was issued on 27.8.2009 by the first Respondent-Inspector of
Panchayats/District Collector, which was received by the Petitioner on 31.8.2009, for which he sought for extension of time on 12.9.2009, which
was granted upto 9.10.2009 and thereafter, he submitted his explanation on 15.10.2009.
It is seen from the pleadings of the parties that after 15.10.2009, there was no action and thereafter, the first Respondent/Inspector of
Panchayats considered the case and, as the explanation submitted by the Petitioner was not satisfactory, the first Respondent directed the
Tahsildar to convene a meeting to ascertain the views of the Village Panchayat, vide proceedings dated 28.2.2011. Pursuant to the same, the third
Respondent-Tahsildar issued the impugned communication on 1.7.2011 informing the convening of the meeting to be held on 7.7.2011 as per
Sections 205(3) and (4) of the Act.
Assailing the above impugned communication, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the period of tenure of the
President of the Village Panchayat is going to come to an end by September 2011. The Respondents have waited for 21 months and now they
have proceeded to take action against the Petitioner on the charges levelled against him for procuring street light materials without following the
Government Order, expenses made contrary to the Government Order regarding water supply works, spending the amount more than the
approved allocation for sanitation and non-auctioning of the trees that were removed, and the expenditure made without connected sub-vouchers,
etc., and in all, the total value is Rs. 3,26,399/-, for which, the Petitioner has submitted his explanation on 15.10.2009.
To examine as to whether there was inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Respondents in initiating the proceedings, the records
have been placed before this Court and it is seen therefrom that there were certain communications on 24.9.2009, 9.10.2009 and 15.10.2009,
stating that the Respondents have sought for records of the Panchayat from the Petitioner for perusal of the case and it is also shown to this Court
from the records that the records have been received from the Village Panchayat on 28.1.2011 and thereafter, the Inspector of Panchayats, on
28.2.2011 directed the third Respondent to convene a meeting and accordingly, the third Respondent has issued the impugned communication on
1.7.2011 informing the meeting to be convened on 7.7.2011.
The delay on the ground of administrative reasons and in receipt of the records, is one factor to be reckoned with. But even then, the
Respondents took maximum time keeping the case pending with them for unexplained period. When the authorities like the Extension Officer,
Deputy BDO and the BDO are overseeing and scrutinising the day-to-day activities of the Panchayat and the District Collector being the highest
authority of the District and in whose control the Petitioner is discharging his duties as President, it is not shown to this Court as to for what
reasons, the Respondents kept quiet without explaining the delay in receipt of the records. In the opinion of this Court, it cannot be a factor to
prolong the proceedings without concluding the same within a reasonable time.
Further, the second limb of arguments made by learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the impugned communication is vitiated in law for the
reason that there is a complete violation of the procedural irregularities by the Respondents in giving the notice u/s 205(4) of the Act, which clearly
contemplates that a copy of the notice of the meeting shall be caused to be delivered to the President and to all the members of the Village
Panchayat by the Tahsildar at least seven days before the date of the meeting. This is one of the facts which the Respondents also admitted in their
counter affidavit in paragraph 4 that the communication given by the Tahsildar is not in consonance with Sections 205(3) and (4) of the Act and in
the said communication, appropriate time was not mentioned as contemplated under the Act and the same is not sustainable. The third Respondent
postponed the meeting fixed on 13 7.7.2011 due to unavoidable circumstances.
On a perusal of the records and in view of the admission made by the Respondents in paragraph 4 of the counter, it is vivid that there is a
violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 205(4) of the Act, and therefore, for this reason, the impugned communication is vitiated in law
and hence, the impugned communication is liable to be quashed.
For the foregoing reasonings and on an analysis of entire factors which have to be given consideration, I am of the considered view that the
impugned communication suffers from legal infirmity and it cannot be sustained and the same is hereby quashed.
However, the third Respondent is directed to convene the meeting within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order and proceed in the manner as provided u/s 205 of the Act, particularly, u/s 205(8) of the Act and also by following the procedures and give
a proper reading to the show cause notice and also the explanation of the President on the proposal for removal of the Petitioner-President during
the meeting to be convened by the authorities to ascertain the views of the Panchayat and after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the
Petitioner, the Respondents are directed to take a decision within a period of four weeks from the date of the meeting.
With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.