P MULLAIROJA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Part-Time Clerk in the 4th respondent Panchayat in 1997. THE 4th respondent has framed certain charges against the petitioner and by the communications dated 05.03.2002 and 07.12.2002, the 4th respondent has directed the petitioner to submit her explanation. THE charges are relating to the construction of houses for the Scheduled Caste candidates at Pazhavalam and regarding the utilisation of funds, there was some irregularities committed, resulting that the beneficiaries have not been conferred with the benefits under the Scheme; that for putting up sodium lamps she has taken Rs.2,700/- payable to the Electricity Board; that she has collected excess amount of tax from the occupants, which was not shown in the accounts; that she has not brought on registers regarding the earlier motor starter and motor in the well; that she has committed misappropriation in not obtaining signature from the members of the Panchayat regarding the payment to be made to them every month, apart from maintaining of accounts and registers without obtaining signature from the members of the Panchayat and without referring to the accounts for auditing. In respect of those specified charges, which are grave in nature, it appears that the petitioner has given an undated reply, in which, she has denied the charges and specifically stated that in respect of the amounts stated to have been misappropriated, those amounts were not taken during the period when she was employed and it was during the time when the previous President was in office, apart from other explanations.

(2.) BASED on the said undated explanation, the 4th respondent has passed the order on 07.01.2003 removing the petitioner from service. It was against the said order of the 4th respondent, the petitioner has approached the District Collector by way of representation on 22.04.2003 and ultimately, she has filed an appeal to the 1st respondent as per section 219 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. In the grounds of appeal filed before the 1st respondent, the petitioner has clearly complained to the 1st respondent that the 4th respondent has just asked for explanation and after explanation, without giving sufficient opportunity, he has terminated the services of the petitioner and therefore, there is a violation of the principles of natural justice. The 1st respondent, by the impugned order, has rejected the appeal on the ground that as per the instructions of the Government issued to the Panchayats dated 20.11.2001, what is required is only sufficient opportunity should be given to explain to the charges and when once such an opportunity has been given by the 4th respondent, there is no illegality in it. Therefore, ultimately, the 1st respondent relied upon the instructions issued by the Government dated 20.11.2001 to all Panchayat officials regarding the removal of the various employees of the Panchayats, wherein it is stated that such removal shall not be effected without any sufficient reasons and without following the procedures. The guideline also states that before removing of person from the panchayat service, the explanation must be asked for in writing and a reasonable opportunity to defend his/her case must be given. Therefore, the impugned order proceeds on the basis that just by framing the charges and asking the delinquent to give his/her objections and that itself is sufficient for the authorities to consider and pass orders and it does not require any further enquiry, like the personal hearing and so on.

(3.) THE words imbibed the conduct of the principles of the natural justice. While dealing with the officers and servants of the Panchayats, especially in respect of the disciplinary proceedings, the termination of service on the basis of the allegations including that of the misappropriation, certainly results in the stigma on the Panchayat service, which requires the principles of natural justice to be complied with, a proper enquiry to be conducted. When we speak about the principles of natural justice, it means normally not only by framing the charges in a crisp manner but also obtaining the objections to the charges followed by a proper enquiry to be conducted, in which the charges framed against the delinquent must be proved by the authorities and such proof must be subject to the cross examination of the delinquent and it is thereafter the authority should come to a conclusion about the correctness or otherwise of the charges framed against the delinquent. In the absence of such compliance of principles of natural justice, we cannot accept the contention of the respondents that the reasonable opportunity to defend the case of the petitioner stops when the petitioner has given an explanation and the authority can pass any order of its choice.