AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren
This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent, in Na. Ka. U Ni5/3201/2010, dated 13.08.2010, and quash the same. It has been stated that the petitioner is the President of Kumaragiri Village Panchayat. She had assumed charge, as the President of the said Panchayat, on 25.10.2006. As such, she has been discharging her duties without any blemish. While so, the first respondent had issued the impugned order, dated 13.08.2010, vesting the cheque singing power of the petitioner with the second respondent. The petitioner has stated that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to seek for explanation from the petitioner, u/s 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchyats Act, 1994. Further, it is contrary to the Government order, in G.O.Ms.No.238, Rural Development Department, dated 24.07.1997.
It had also been stated that the first respondent had passed the impugned order without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and without application of mind. Due to the impugned order passed by the first respondent, the employees of the Kumaragiri Village Panchayat have not been receiving their salary for more than two months and therefore, the sanitary works, maintenance of street lights, supply of drinking water and other welfare activities could not be carried out.
It had also been stated that Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchyats Act, 1994, entitles the first respondent to exercise certain powers in cases of emergency, by carrying out certain works, if it is necessary for the safety of the public. Section 204 of the said Act, empowers the District Collector, to take action on the failure of the President of the Village Panchayat concerned, if he had defaulted in performing his duties. It also entitles the District Collector to appoint some person to perform such duties and to bear the cost of such performance, from the Panchayat funds. However, there is no power vested with the first respondent to take away the cheque signing power of the President, as it has been done in the present case.
It had also been stated that it shall be the duty of the Village Panchayat President to sign the cheques for all payments to be made from the Village Panchayat funds. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it has been stated that the petitioner had not been discharging her duties, properly, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,1994. Therefore, the inspecting authority, inspected the records of Kumaragiri Village Panchayat, as per the powers delegated by the Government, in G.O.Ms.No.238, Rural Development, dated 25.07.1997. During the inspection of the records of the said Panchayat, it had been found that an amount of Rs.47,083/-collected as tax, on various dates, from 09.02.2010 to 31.03.2010, had been misappropriated by the petitioner. Only on receipt of the inspection report, she had remitted the misappropriated amount, on 28.04.2010 and 29.04.2010.
It had been further stated that on inspection of the Village Panchayat, on 27.04.2010, it had been found that a sum of Rs.2,28,150/-had been spent during the year 2009-2010, by the petitioner, towards the removal of waste from the streets. Inspite of the prohibition to use temporary workers, by way of a Government order, in G.O.Ms.No.93, Rural Development Department, dated 26.03.1997, non-muster roll employees had been used in Kumaragiri Village Panchayat, incurring heavy expenditure. It had also been noticed that 12,900 kilograms, (258 bags) of bleaching powder had been purchased for a sum of Rs.2,03,875/-for being used by the Village Panchayat. However, it was not available in the office of the Village Panchayat during the inspection. Further, no entries had been made in the stock register, in Panchayat form No.18, of the Kumaragiri Village Panchayat. As such, a total sum of Rs.31,61,246/-had been misutilised by the petitioner. In such circumstances, based on the inspection of the Village Panchayat, on 19.04.2010 and 27.04.2010, a show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner by the first respondent, on 28.05.2010, asking the petitioner to submit her explanation.
It had also been found that a sum of Rupees 25 Lakhs collected from the public deposit, for the purpose of providing residential water supply connections, was missing. The library tax collected from the public, during the years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, had not been remitted into the concerned department. The said amount had been misutilised by the petitioner. She had also failed to remit the pending charges to the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and the Drainage Board and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.
It had also been stated that four members of the Village Panchayat, out of the 12 members available, have sent a petition to the first respondent, on 06.05.2010, in respect of the irregularities committed by her. Further, the petitioner had failed to maintain proper accounts of the activities and the expenditure incurred by the Kumaragiri Village Panchayat. She had also committed certain other serious irregularities. Therefore, the impugned order had to be passed to curtail the cheque signing power of the petitioner. After nearly a month of the passing of the impugned order, the financial position of the Kumaragiri Village Panchayat had improved. In such circumstances, it cannot be stated that the impugned order issued by the first respondent is invalid in the eye of law.
The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the first respondent is not empowered to take away the cheque signing power of the petitioner, by invoking Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchyats Act, 1994. It had also been stated that no proper opportunity had been given to the petitioner before the impugned order had been passed. Nearly twenty charges had been levelled against the petitioner and the petitioner had submitted her detailed explanation for the said charges. However, the petitioner had not been in a position to meet all the allegations made by the first respondent, since, the relevant records of the Kumaragiri Village Panchayat had been taken away by the respondents. There is no provision of law, or a Government order, authorizing the first respondent to take away the cheque signing power of the President of the Village Panchayat. Further, it is clear that there is no emergency for the first respondent to invoke the powers provided u/s 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,1994. Nothing had been shown on behalf of the respondents to substantiate their claim that there was an emergency, due to which, the first respondent had invoked the powers available u/s 203 of the Act. It had been further submitted that the proceedings initiated u/s 205 of the Act is still pending and no final orders had been passed, till date. It had also been submitted that the impugned order of the first respondent is a non-speaking order and no proper reasons had been given by the first respondent for passing the said order.
In support of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had relied on the following decisions of this Court:
(i) S. Udayakumar Vs. The District Collector-cum-Inspector of Panchayats,2009 Writ L.R. 538.
(ii) S.K. Sundararajan Vs. The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayats and others, (W.P.(MD).No.1460 of 2010, order dated 17.02.2010.)
(iii) S. Sumathi Vs. The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayats and others, (W.P.(MD).No.26486 of 2009, order dated 24.02.2010.)
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the first respondent had passed the impugned order only to safe guard the interests of the public of the Kumaragiri Village Panchayat. The petitioner had misappropriated huge amounts of money from the funds of the Kumaragiri Village Panchayat. Since, the inspection submitted by the petitioner was not convincing, the first respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 13.08.2010, taking away the cheque singing power of the petitioner and vesting it with the second respondent. The decision relied on by the petitioner, S. Udayakumar Vs. The District Collector-cum-Inspector of Panchayats, reported in 2009 Writ L.R.538, would not be applicable to the present case. It is clearly seen that the first respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 13.08.2010, only due to the prevailing emergency, in order to prevent the funds of the Kumaragiri Village Panchayat being misused and misappropriated by the petitioner.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions.
(i) T. Elango Vs. The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayats, Madurai District, Madurai. (W.P. (MD). No. 7660 of 2009, order dated 08.12.2009.)
(ii) Mathina Maharibha Vs. The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayats, Madurai District, Madurai. (W.P(MD). No. 7683 of 2009, order dated 08.12.2009.)
(iii) V. Karunanithi Vs. The Secretary to Government and others. (W.P. (MD). No. 26741 of 2009, order dated 23.02.2010.)
(iv) Ramesh Vs. The Secretary to Government and others. W.P.(MD).No.26742 of 2009, order dated 23.02.2010.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had also submitted that the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity to submit her explanation to the charges levelled against her. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first respondent had passed the impugned order in violation of the principles of natural justice. In view of the various decisions of this Court, it is clear that the first respondent has the necessary powers to prevent the misuse of the funds of the Kumaragiri Village Panchayat, by taking away the cheque signing power of the petitioner.
In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, and in view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and in view of the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the relief, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present Writ Petition. It is seen that the first respondent has passed the impugned order, dated 13.08.2010, based on the serious charges levelled against the petitioner, including the misappropriation of the funds belonging to the Kumaragiri Village Panchayat. The petitioner has not been in a position to substantiate her claim that she had not been given sufficient opportunity to submit a proper explanation to the charges levelled against her. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that a situation had arisen for the first respondent to invoke the emergency powers available u/s 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchyats Act, 1994. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 13.08.2010, is contrary to the relevant provisions of law and the principles of natural justice. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the first respondent does not have the power or the jurisdiction to issue the impugned order. From the records available before this Court, it is seen that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner, including the allegation that she had misappropriated the funds of the Kumaragiri Village Panchayat to the tune of more than Rupees 31 Lakhs. Even though it may be open to the petitioner to defend herself, by raising various grounds, in the proceedings initiated against her, u/s 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchyats Act, 1994, this Court does not find it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 13.08.2010, at this stage. As such, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.