P RAAJENDRAN; A L VADIVEL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR; ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT; BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (VP) AND THE PRESIDENT; STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P. No. 8297 of 2006 is filed to quash the order passed by the third respondent dated 4.3.2003 placing the petitioner under suspension and to direct the fourth respondent to reinstate the petitioner as Part-time Panchayat Clerk.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that on the resolution of Orathupatty Village Panchayat, petitioner was appointed as Part-time Panchayat Assistant from 1.11.1997 and his salary was fixed at a sum of Rs. 350/- per month. The fourth respondent sent a report to the third respondent on 4.3.2003 and stated that the petitioner was not doing any work and requested the third respondent to suspend the petitioner so that the third respondent will be in a position to appoint a person, who is close relative of the President. The third respondent by order dated 4.3.2003, suspended the petitioner and directed one Alagan Poosari from Melavanniruppu Village Panchayat to look after the work assigned to the petitioner. On 10.11.2003, petitioner submitted a report to the Block Development Officer, S. Pudur Panchayat Union and requested the Block Development Officer to reinstate him and pay the salary for the suspension period, however no action was taken by the Block Development Officer. On 21.3.2003 a charge memo was issued containing four charges, which reads as follows:

(3.) The third respondent filed counter affidavit contending that the 4th respondent sent a report to the third respondent on 4.3.2003 stating that the petitioner is not doing any work and requested the third respondent to suspend the petitioner. It is also admitted in the counter affidavit that the third respondent suspended the petitioner and issued charge memo on 21.3.2003. It is also averred in the counter affidavit that no explanation for the charge memo dated 21.3.2003 was submitted by the petitioner. The Extension Officer (Panchayat) enquired the complaint given by the 4th respondent and recommended for temporary suspension of the petitioner on 4.3.2003 and therefore the third respondent suspended the petitioner. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the third respondent removed the petitioner from service by resolution dated 1.5.2003 and the removal order dated 19.6.2003 was served on the petitioner on the same day itself, for which the petitioner gave his acknowledgment. On the above pleadings the third respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.