P. Vasanthi vs The District Collector, The Personal Assistant to District Collector and The Block Development Officer, Watrap Panchayat Union

K. Chandru, J.—The petitioner is a noon meal organizer working in the Watrap Nadar Primary School. After a surprise inspection

conducted by P.A. to the District Collector (NMP), certain irregularities were brought to his notice. The petitioner had taken away the food items

meant for the children and there was also shortage of commodities in the centre. Based on the said report, the Commissioner of Panchayat Union

suspended the petitioner by order dated 21.12.2006, which is under challenge before this Court.

Pursuant to the said inspection, the petitioner was also directed to make good the loss caused to the centre. The petitioner approached this

Court by way of filing the present Writ Petition and also got interim order in her favour.

When the matter came up for further extension of stay order, with the consent of both the parties, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for

hearing.

Mr. M. Jothi Basu, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that it is not a suspension pending enquiry and the petitioner has been

permanently removed from service by the impugned order. Further, he contended that without conducting any enquiry, the question of recovery

does not arise. He also relied upon certain Government Orders to show that if a portion of the amounts which are in short, is paid, no further action

will be taken against the petitioner.

A noon-meal centre is established for the purpose of feeding poor children. If the noon meal centre takes away the food items meant for the

children, not only the children will be put to sufferings but will also bring disrepute to the Government, which had brought the scheme.

In the present case, a reading of the impugned order reveals that it is only a suspension pending enquiry. The petitioner cannot take the sentence

found in the order out of context and try to argue that suspension made against her is a punishment. Even if the allegations made against the

petitioner have been proved solely on the basis of the report given by the Personal Assistant (NMP) to the District Collector, it need not create

any apprehension on the petitioner. Before any order of termination is passed, it is made clear that the respondents should conduct an enquiry and

provide proper opportunities for the petitioner to prove her innocence.

Therefore, challenge to the suspension order which is impugned in the Writ Petition is misconceived and will stand dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Considering the fact that the suspension has been made as far as December, 2006, the

respondents are directed to conduct an enquiry affording an opportunity to the petitioner and take final decision on merits and in accordance with

law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.