P KANAGARAJ Vs. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein was appointed as Panchayat Assistant in the year 1995 and initially posted at Padarami Panchayat, Gudiyatham Taluk. Subsequently, he was transferred to Kallapadi Panchayat and, in the year 2008, he was posted at Gudanagaram Panchayat by the Block Development Officer/Commissioner. According to the petitioner, while he was serving in Gudanagaram Panchayat, the 2nd respondent/Panchayat President asked him to do some malpractice in the accounts, for which, the petitioner did not oblige and, as a result, the 2nd respondent developed grudge against the petitioner and was taking efforts to remove the petitioner and, in his place, to place an obliging person. In that background, alleging irregularities on the part of the petitioner from 04.01.2010 to 10.09.2010 and stating that such irregularities resulted in a loss of Rs.2 lakhs to the Panchayat, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned suspension order, dated 27.09.2010, as against the petitioner. THE said order is challenged on the sole ground that, without issuance of any show cause notice, straight away, the petitioner was suspended on the basis of certain whimsical allegations, in utter violation of the principles of natural justice.

(2.) IN an arduous endeavour to assail the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner, by adverting to clause-v of the Annexure to G.O. Ms. No.175, Rural Development and Panchayat (E5) Department, dated 05.12.2006, under the caption 'Administrative Discipline, which provides that, before proceeding against a Panchayat Assistant so as to impose the punishments of censure, fine, stoppage in increment/withholding promotion, reduction to lower rank, suspension, reversion or dismissal for the acts of violation of the rules, disqualification, misconduct and irregularities etc., sufficient opportunity should be given to such Village Assistant including personal hearing, enabling him to submit his explanation, would submit that neither a show-cause notice was issued nor a proper enquiry conducted in this case. According to the learned counsel, when the procedure prescribed in the above Government Order was obviously given a complete go-bye, the impugned suspension order, which came to be passed with ulterior motives against an employee who refused to oblige the 2nd respondent to do mal-practice in the panchayat accounts, is rendered invalid in the eye of law. So submitting, learned counsel pleads that the prayer sought for may be granted.

(3.) IN this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order of suspension dated 27.09.2010 and it is made clear that the respondents are at liberty to initiate the proceedings afresh after due compliance of the procedure adumbrated in G.O. Ms. No.175, dated 05.12.2006, and thereafter proceed further in accordance with law. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. File received from the learned counsel for the respondents is returned to him in the open court.