E. Ganesan vs The District Collector, The Block Development Officer (Panchayats), and The President, Karivedu Village Panchayat

T. Raja, J.—The present writ petition is directed against the impugned order passed by the 3rd Respondent in Na. Ka.1/2009, dated

26.04.2010 and quash the same with a further direction to the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service with all monetary benefits

including the salary from March, 2007.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Clerk by proceedings dated

05.05.1999. During the local body elections took place in October, 2006, one Sripathi belonging to BC community was elected as President of

the Panchayat. Since the Petitioner belongs to SC community, he started to ill-treat the Petitioner by stating one reason or other and as a result, the

salary payable to the Petitioner from March, 2007 was not paid, though he was continuously working and discharging his duties as Panchayat

Clerk. In view of distrained relationship between the Petitioner and the 3rd Respondent, he was placed under suspension on 11.06.2008, on the

basis of the complaint given by the 3rd Respondent and subsequently, he was dismissed from service.

Though there was a G.O. Ms. No. 175, dated 05.12.2006 bringing the Panchayat Clerks on time scale of pay with effect from 01.09.2006,

which further states that the President can initiate the disciplinary proceedings, subject to the observance of the rules and procedure governing the

disciplinary proceedings, without even complying the above said GO, the 3rd Respondent has dismissed the Petitioner from service. Therefore, the

Petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition in W.P. No. 25017/2009. This Court, on prima facie, finding the fact that the Petitioner was

dismissed without even any enquiry, by order dated 24.02.2010, set aside the termination order and directed the Respondents to conduct an

enquiry into the charges and pass orders in accordance with law. In spite of the said direction, once again, they repeated the same mistake.

Further, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also brought to the notice of the Court the contents mentioned in the impugned order, wherein

there was no mentioning about the holding of enquiry as directed by this Court in W.P. No. 25017/2009, dated 24.02.2010.

Though, in reply, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that the Petitioner has not till date submitted his written

explanation and therefore, the 3rd Respondent was constrained to pass the impugned order, the above submission made by the learned Counsel

for the Respondents does not carry any merit, for the simple reason that the 3rd Respondent should have at least held a proper enquiry, after

receiving the explanation from the Petitioner. Even if the Petitioner failed to submit his explanation, the 3rd Respondent could have conducted an

exparte enquiry and thereafter should have passed an order. That apart, the 3rd Respondent has not only deliberately violated the G.O. Ms. No.

175, dated 05.12.2006, but also violated the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 25017/2009, dated 24.02.2010, therefore, I am inclined to

set aside the impugned order by directing the 3rd Respondent to proceed in accordance with said GO and pass further orders after holding proper

enquiry. Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed to submit his explanation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order and thereafter, after receipt of the explanation, the 3rd Respondent is directed to proceed in accordance with the said GO as well as earlier

order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 25017/2009, dated 24.02.2010. Further, the Respondents are directed to clear all the subsistence

allowance within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. M.P. No. 1 of 2010 is closed.