B. SARAVANAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR VELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR .B.Saravanan, who was elected as President of Thellur Panchayat, Vellore District, aggrieved by the order passed by the District Collector, Vellore, the first respondent herein removing him from the post of President of Thellur Panchayat, has come to this Court challenging the same on the ground that the first respondent has not followed the mandatory conditions adumbrated under sub -section (8) of Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.

(2.) MR .R.Margabandhu, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per sub -sections (2) & (8) of Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act '), since the Inspector of Panchayat, the first respondent herein, while taking steps to remove the elected president of a panchayat, must issue a charge sheet calling upon the said president to submit his explanation on all the charges and after receiving the explanation from the delinquent president, in the opinion of the Inspector of Panchayat, if the explanation offered was not satisfactory against the charges and available records, he shall direct the convening of a meeting by the Tahsildar and as soon as the meeting has commenced, the Tahsildar shall read to the village panchayat the notice of the Inspector and the explanation, if any, of the president and the proposal for removal of the president, for the consideration of which it has been convened. The learned counsel further submitted that since the above procedure for removal of president is clear and unambiguous that the Tahsildar, after convening the meeting, shall read to the village panchayat the notice of the Inspector and the explanation, if any, of the president and also the proposal for removal of the president, but the proposal of the Inspector of panchayat for removal has not been read out to the village panchayat, thereby the mandatory conditions adumbrated under sub -section (8) of Section 205 of the Act has been seriously violated, hence, the removal of the petitioner from the post of president of Thellur panchayat is illegal and the same is to be set aside. In support of his submissions, he has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in D.Bagyalakshmi v. The Secretary to Government, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Chennai and two others, 2011 (5) CTC 496 for the proposition that a reading of the proposal of the Inspector of Panchayat for removal of president at the village panchayat meeting is mandatory as per sub -section (8) of Section 205 of the Act. As this provision has been violated, for this clear violation, he pleaded that this Court has no other option but to interfere with the impugned proceedings of the respondents.

(3.) AGAIN in respect of Charge No.4, it has been alleged that the employees provident fund of the panchayat board was not remitted, whereas the panchayat 's contribution for all the employees were directly remitted in the panchayat account. With regard to Charge No.5, it was alleged that the records were not maintained, but the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation that all the records were properly maintained and entered accounts at the appropriate time. But the explanation to the above said charges have not been properly considered and directly the order of removal of the elected president, without even reading out the proposal of the Inspector of panchayat, has been made. Concluding his arguments, he has stated that it is an underlying principle that the Tahsildar of the jurisdiction concerned, while dealing with the matter of taking views of the panchayat, after the amendment of the provision in the year 1999 to sub -section (8) to Section 205, must read the proposal for the removal of the president of the village panchayat at the meeting and admittedly, in the present case, when there is no semblance of proof that such procedure was followed by the authorities concerned, the method undertaken by the respondents for removal of the petitioner from the post of president is ultra vires the mandatory provisions under sub -section (8) of Section 205 of the Act. On this basis, he prayed for interference with the impugned order.