S. Regis Mary vs The State

M. Venugopal, J.—Heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents.

According to the Petitioner, during elections conducted for the Pallamthurai Village Panchayat, during the year 2011-2014, he was elected as the 5th Ward Member of Pallamathurai Village Panchayat, Rajakkamangalam Panchayat Union, Kanyakumari District. Thereafter, he was elected as Vice President of the said Panchayat, by a majority vote in his favour by other members. While he was functioning as Vice President of the Pallamathurai Village Panchayat, a special Audit was conducted by the Assistant Director of Rural Development (Audit) / 4th Respondent during the month of May 2013. During the said Audit inspection, some irregularities were found out by the Audit and hence, a report was submitted by the 4th Respondent to the District Collector, Kanyakumari District / 3rd Respondent, vide his letter No. A3/Pa.Va.9/13, dated 25.06.2013.

Based on the said report of the 4th Respondent and consequent direction given by the 3rd Respondent, the Block Development Officer, Rajakkamangalam Panchayat Union gave a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Suseendram Police Station, against one Lalith Inpenda, who was working as the Panchayat Assistant of the Pallamthurai Village at that relevant point of time and based on the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime 454 of 2013, dated 09.08.2013, against the said Lalith Independa for the offences under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC.

The said Village Assistant Lalith Inpenda was also suspended from service. As against the said First Information Report in Crime No. 454 of 2013, the said Lalith Inpenda, Village Assistant, filed a Petition before this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No. 19406 of 2013, seeking a relief to quash the FIR registered in Crime No. 454 of 2013, against her and for grant of interim stay. This Court had granted the interim stay.

While things stood thus, on the basis of the report given by the 4th Respondent, the 3rd Respondent / Inspector of Panchayats cum District Collector, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, had issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner, dated 01.10.2013 in his letters No. R.3/Pa.Va 9/13, dated 20.05.2013 and 20.06.2013, under Section 206(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. As per the said show-cause notice, eight charges were levelled against the Petitioner, which run as follows:-

"1st Charge : It is alleged that I have not produced any receipt during the course of audit inspection, for the payment of Rs. 42,549/- which was alleged to have been made to one contractor for fixing and repairing the valves and also to the pipes.

2nd Charge: It is alleged that I have not produced any receipt during the course of audit inspection, for the payment made through cheque No. 376675 dated 31.03.2012 for a sum of Rs. 40,104/- given to one Chitra Traders towards cost of the street light spares, bleaching power purchased and also for purchase of Lime Stone for the village Panchayat

3rd Charge: It is alleged that I have not produced any receipt during the course of audit inspection, for the payment made through cheque No. 376598 dated 30.05.2012 for a sum of Rs. 26,915/- given to M/s.Chitra Traders towards purchase of street lighting spare parts.

4th Charge: It is alleged that I have not produced any receipt during the course of audit inspection, about the refund of Caution Deposit amount to one Suresh made through Cheque No. 376509 dated 26.09.2012 for a sum of Rs. 15,521/-

5th Charge: It is alleged that I have not produced any receipt during the course of audit inspection about the payment made by Cheque No. 391111 dated 19.1.2012 for Rs. 41,000/- made to Lingam Brothers towards purchase of Kirloskar Pump Set for the Village Panchayat.

6th Charge : It is alleged that I have not produced any receipt during the course of audit inspection about the payment made by Cheque No. 772840 dated 10.01.2013 for Rs. 25,120 made to Lingam Brothers towards purchase of 7.5 HP Motor for the Village panchayat.

7th Charge: It is alleged that I have not produced any receipt during the course of audit inspection about the payment made by cheque No. 272969 dated 28.3.2013 for a sum of Rs. 10,280/- to Chitra Traders towards purchase of bleaching powder and lime stone etc.

8th Charge: It is alleged that there were no old equipment lying in the Village Panchayat for conducting auction for sale of such equipment belonging to the said village panchayat.

Also it was alleged that the Petitioner had failed to maintain proper records and the amounts were spent without following the Rules and Regulations of the Panchayat, while discharging his duties, as the Village Vice President etc.,

The contention of the Petitioner is that before issuing the Cheque to the Panchayat Clerk, the concerned work of the Village Panchayat was not placed before the Panchayat about the said purchases or repairs of any equipment and for getting permission from the members of the Panchayat. Also in the said show-cause notice, it was stated that in view of the aforesaid charges, why the petitioner should not be removed from the post of Vice President, under Section 206(1) of the Tamilnadu Panchayat Act. Further, he was directed to submit his explanation within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of show cause notice.

The 3rd Respondent / District Collector, Kanyakumari District also issued a show-cause notice under Section 205(i)(a) of the Tamilnadu Panchayats Act, 1994 to the President of the same Panchayat i.e., Pallaamthurai Village Panchayat viz., Maria Brose for the same set of charges, which are levelled against her.

Soon after the receipt of the above show-cause notice from the 3rd Respondent, the Petitioner sent a detailed explanation within the stipulated time on 16.11.2013 denying all the allegations made against him in the above show cause notice and requested the 3rd Respondent to drop all the further proceedings in the matter. After receipt of explanation, the 3rd Respondent expressed that he was not satisfied with the Petitioner''s explanation and directed the 5th Respondent / Tahildar to conduct a special meeting of the Panchayat to get the view of the Village Panchayat, under Section 205(2) of the Act.

Thereafter, the 5th Respondent / Tahsildar had issued a notice dated 17.02.2014 through proceedings No. Aa 4/193/13 to him and other members of the Panchayat intimating that a Special meeting of the Panchayat would be held on 20.02.2014 at 10.30 a.m., in the Office of the Panchayat, under Section 205(2) to (10) of the Act, against the charges levelled the President and Vice President.

Out of 9 members, two members viz., Chelladurai and Bennett were not present on that day for the meeting in question and only 7 members were present. Further, out of which, one member is the person who was facing the prosecution. Thus, 6 members were present. Out of 6 members, 4 members had expressed their views to continue the present President and Vice President in their respective posts, since they were not aware of the charges against the President and Vice President. After the said meeting and recording the view of the members present at that meeting, the 5th Respondent / Tahsildar submitted a report to the 3rd Respondent / District Collector, on the very same day, through his letter No. Na.Ka.C2/5109/2014, dated 20.02.2014.

The 3rd Respondent / District Collector was not satisfied with the report of the 5th Respondent, again issued a second show cause notice to him dated 01.03.2014 in No. A4/193/13 calling for his further explanation regarding the charges as well as on the report of the 5th Respondent / Tahsildar, within a period of seven days. He submitted a detailed explanation on 10.03.2014, reiterating his earlier explanation and also stated that majority of the members in the said meeting held on 20.02.2014, gave opinion for continuance of the President and Vice President and the charges were baseless.

At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court the order passed on 18.07.2014 in W.P.(MD)No. 9256 of 2014 between Maria Brose v. The State Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Local Administration Fort, St.George, Chennai-600 009 and 4 others, wherein this Court had allowed the Writ Petition as prayed for (President of the Petitioner Panchayat) and quashed the impugned proceedings, dated 30.05.2014 in Na.Ka.No. A4/193/2013, dated 28.05.2014 in Se.Mu.No. A4/193/2013, dated 28.05.2014, passed by the third Respondent / District Collector, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. In effect, the order of this Court dated 18.07.2014 in W.P(MD)No. 9256 of 2014 is that this Court had clearly held that the impugned proceedings removing the Petitioner was an illegal and arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and accordingly, quashed the same.

In this connection it is to be pointed out that the Petitioner being elected as Vice President of the Panchayat is only to be removed / displaced as per relevant provisions of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act. It cannot be gainsaid that when a statute contemplates a procedure to be followed then the power of and procedure are to be exercised in the manner prescribed and not otherwise, as opined by this Court.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner strenuously contents that the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No. 9256 of 2014, dated 18.07.2014 between Maria Brose v. The State Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Local Administration Fort, St.George, Chennai-600 009 and 4 others, squarely applies to the facts of the present case and applying the said order in W.P.No. 9256 of 2014, this court may allow the present Writ Petition, in W.P.(MD)No. 13376 of 2014, inasmuch as the present Writ Petition stands on a similar footing like that of the Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No. 9256 of 2014.

This particular fact is not disputed by the Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents. Hence, applying the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No. 9256 of 2014, between Maria Brose v. The State Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Local Administration Fort, St.George, Chennai-600 009 and 4 others, this Court allows the present Writ Petition.

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings of the 3rd Respondent / District Collector, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil made in proceedings, dated 30.05.2014 in Na.Ka.A4/193/2013 (ii) and proceedings in Se.Mu.No. A4/193/2013, dated 28.05.2014, are quashed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.