C.KALAISELVI Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dtd. 15/7/2024 thereby confirmed the order passed by the second respondent thereby removed the petitioner from the post of President of Paithur Panchayat, Attur Taluk, Salem District.

(2.) The petitioner was elected President of Paithur Panchayat. While being so, on receipt of complaint from general public, the petitioner was served with charge memo by the second respondent. On receipt of explanation from the petitioner, the second respondent without being satisfied with the same, ordered to conduct enquiry by the third respondent. The third respondent convened a meeting as contemplated under Sec. 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. In the said meeting, all the 12 ward members participated, in which except two members, other 10 members did not accept the charges initiated as against the petitioner. Even then, the second respondent conducted enquiry thereby removed the petitioner from the post of President of Paithur Panchayat. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the first respondent and the same was also dismissed.

(3.) Mr.A.K.Sriram, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though out of 12 ward members, 10 members did not support the allegations as against the petitioner in the meeting convened by the third respondent, the second respondent differed with the views and without giving further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, removed her from the post of President. In fact, the petitioner sought for time to submit her explanation before the second respondent on the complaint. However, the petitioner was not given sufficient time to submit explanation and it was ordered to convene a meeting by the third respondent. The petitioner was set exparte before the second respondent. Therefore, it is clear violation of principles of natural justice. The appellate authority also mechanically dismissed the appeal without appreciating the above facts and circumstances.