P.M. SANTHI Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has been filed to call for the records of the first respondent order in Na.Ka.7726-2007-D-dtd. 23/2/2008 and the 2nd respondent orders in Memo No.193/BST-B6/08 dtd. 9/9/2008 and Memo No.193/BST-B6/08 dtd. 17/2/2009 and quash the same consequently directing the 2nd respondent to issue appointment order as VAO to the petitioner.

(2.) The facts of the case in a nutshell:- The petitioner was working as a LIC agent from the year 2001 and her husband suddenly passed away on 24/1/2006. Thereafter the petitioner applied for 'Destitute Widow' certificate on 10/8/2007 and the same was issued by the first respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District on 30/10/2007. The petitioner resigned as LIC agent with effect from 30/10/2007. On 1/11/2007 the petitioner was provisionally selected for the post of Village Administrative Officer. Then one Kulandaivelu who is also a native of the petitioner's village had previous property dispute with the petitioner and several others gave a complaint to the Namakkal District Collector stating that the petitioner has obtained the 'Destitute Widow' Certificate by giving false/wrong information. Hence, the first respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchengode, Namakkal district by letter dtd. 11/1/2008 called the petitioner to appear before him on 23/1/2008 along with all original documents. On 23/1/2008 no enquiry was held and she received another notice dtd. 4/2/2008 from the first respondent to appear before him on 19/2/2008 for enquiry. The petitioner gave a detailed statement to the first respondent and reiterated that she is a destitute widow and coming within the parameters laid down for the same. The first respondent without considering the claim of the petitioner in a proper prospective cancelled the 'Destitute Widow' certificate by impugned order dtd. 23/2/2008. Consequently the second respondent/Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission cancelled the provisional selection of the petitioner as VAO by order dtd. 9/9/2008 and permanently debarred the petitioner by order dtd. 17/2/2009. Aggrieved by the above orders the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an enquiry was conducted by the first respondent on 19/2/2008 and the statement of the petitioner was also recorded and the first respondent passed an impugned order dtd. 23/2/2008 cancelling the 'Destitute Widow' certificate issued to the petitioner and the same was challenged by way of this writ petition. The second respondent based on the order passed by the first respondent dtd. 23/2/2008 issued a show cause notice dtd. 9/9/2008 as why the petitioner should not be debarred permanently from appearing in all future examinations conducted by the TNPSC. The petitioner also gave an explanation to the above notice on 24/9/2008 and not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, the second respondent passed an impugned order dtd. 17/2/2009 permanently debarring the petitioner from appearing in all the recruitment examinations conducted by the TNPSC. He further submitted that the order passed by the first respondent is based on presumptions and assumptions and not based on any oral evidence or documentary evidence. The order passed by the authority must be based on the oral evidence or documentary evidence and not on presumption or assumption, moreover he must apply his mind while passing the order. The authority must be very cautious while passing the order and must ensure that the order does not infringe the fundamental right of the person, against the principles of natural justice and must meet the ends of justice. The relevant portion of the impugned order dtd. 23/2/2008 is extracted hereunder:-