G NAGENDRAN Vs. DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenged the order of suspension passed by the second respondent. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is working as a Co-operative Sub-Registrar, having entered into service in the year 1987. On 4.8.2006, the petitioner was suffering with viral fever. In spite of such position, he attended the office. The first respondent, through proceedings, dated 25.8.2003, appointed the petitioner as 'Assistant Returning Officer' for conducting election to the post of President of Village Panchayats. The petitioner made a representation on 1.9.2006 to the first respondent informing about his inability to discharge his duty as 'Assistant Returning Officer', in view of his ill-health. The petitioner was under the impression that his request would be considered by the first respondent. Thereafter, his health condition got deteriorated and subsequently, he was unable to attend his official duties. Therefore, from 20.9.2006 onwards, he went on medical leave. He applied for such medical leave with medical certificate and submitted a copy of the same to the first respondent. When that being the position, the second respondent passed the impugned order on 26.9.2006, placing the petitioner under suspension on the ground that the petitioner had committed refusal and disobedience to perform election duty and also on the ground that an enquiry into grave charges against the petitioner was contemplated. The said order of suspension is challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.

(2.) The first respondent filed a counter affidavit and in which, it is stated that the petitioner's absence in election duty is an utter wilful and wanton disobedience on his part to perform as 'Assistant Returning Officer'. The duty of the Assistant Returning Officer assigned to the petitioner did not involve any tour, but to sit at the Headquarters fixed for the purpose of receiving nominations etc. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner had wilfully and wantonly disobeyed the order of the District Election Officer. Consequently, the District Election Officer, as per the powers conferred under Rule 5(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1995 addressed the second respondent to place the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect on the ground of refusal and disobedience to perform election duty. Accordingly, the second respondent issued the impugned order.

(3.) The respondents 2 and 3 filed a separate counter affidavits. The sum and substance of the counter affidavits of the respondents 2 and 3 are on the same line as stated by the first respondent in his counter affidavit.