LAWS(MAD)-2001-1-25

V SUBRAMANI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On January 18, 2001
V.SUBRAMANI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. K.R. Tamizhmani, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. By consent the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.

(2.) In the writ petition the petitioner has challenged the proceedings of the 2nd respondent made in Na.Ka.6639/97/Uo E(Uoo)/ A7 dated 4-4-2000 and the order of the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms. No. 308 Rural Development Department dated 27-11-2000. It is the case of the petitioner that he was elected as President of Keelur Panchayat during the year Oct. 1996 and has been functioning as such from the said date. Based upon a complaint given by the Vice President, the 2nd respondent initiated the proceedings under Section 205 (1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act hereinafter called "the Act" and issued a notice on 6-8-1999 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation for certain allegations levelled by the Vice President against the petitioner. One of the allegations is that the petitioner has forged the signature of the Vice President in the cheque and withdrew money from the bank. Apart from the above charge it was alleged that the petitioner spent Rs. 3,500/- when he is authorised to spend only up to Rs. 100/- for Republic Day celebration. He was also charged that without sending proper notices to the members he recorded the minutes as if the Meeting was conducted with 3 of his supporters. He was further charged that without any reosolution he has spent the amount for repairing a pump set. Even though an explanation was submitted by the petitioner, the same was not properly considered and finally by the impunged order dated 4-4-2000, the 2nd respondent removed the petitioner from the office of President. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent which was also rejected in G.O.Ms. No. 308 Rural Development Department dated 27-11-2000.

(3.) Mr. C.Selvaraju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that before the petitioner is removed from the office of President, the 2nd respondent ought to have followed the provisions contained in Section 205(1)(b) of the Act according to which a President could be removed by the Inspector of Panchayat on a representation in writing signed by not less than two thirds of the sanctioned strength of the village panchayat containing a statement of charges against the President and presented in person to the Inspector by any two of the members of the village panchayat. The learned counsel would submit that the 2nd respondent ought not to have entertained the complaint of the Vice President in the absence of a written statement in writing signed by not less than two thirds of the sanctioned strength and presented the said statement containing charges by any two members of village panchayat. The learned counsel would further contend that even assuming that the Inspector could act on the complaint of the Vice President, he should have given a notice to the petitioner requiring him to offer within a specified date his explanation in repsect of his acts of omission and commission mentioned in the notice. Only in the event that the explanation is not satisfactory, the Inspector shall forward to the Tahsildar of the Taluk a copy of the notice referred to sub-section (1) of Section 205 of the Act and explanation of the President if received within the specified date, with proposal for removal of the President for ascertaining the views of the village panchayat. Thereafter only the Tahsildar shall convene a meeting for consideration of the notice and explanation if any, and the proposal for removal of the President at the office of the village panchayat at the time appointed by Tahsildar. He also contended that as per Section 205(4) of the Act, a copy of the notice of the meeting shall be delivered to the President and to all the members of the village panchayat by the Tahsildar atleast seven days before the date of the meeting. After following the procedure under Section 205(5) to (10) the Inspector after considering the views of the village panchayat has to remove the President from the office by notification with effect from a date to be specified therein or drop further action. The learned counsel would contend that admittedly the 2nd respondent forwarded the copy of the notice and the explanation of the petitioner to the Tahsildar under Section 205(2) of the Act. However, the Tahsildar did not follow the procedure as laid down under Section 205(3) to (9) of the Act inasmuch as the views of the panchayat were not by two thirds majority of the members. Admittedly there were no two-third members who supported the removal of the petitioner from the office of the President. Hence, the impugned orders of the respondents based upon the view of village panchayat are liable to be quashed.