D DORAISAMY Vs. COMMISSIONER THIRUVANNAMALAI PANCHAYAT UNION THIRUVANNAMALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a carpentry instructor in the first respondent Panchayat Union, has filed the present writ petition seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the 1st respondent in R.C.A.No.2/5099/94, dated 11.3.1996.

(2.) THE petitioner states that the Thiruvannamalai Panchayat Union has established Carpentary and Blacksmith Production Centre at Samudram under the TRYSEM Scheme within the limits of Nallavanpalayam Panchayat, that after the office hours night watchman used to take care of the Unit, that the said Unit was broken open and theft had been committed on 2.7.1994, that a police complaint had been lodged by the petitioner at the first itself and later by the 1 st respondent, that the Thiruvannamalai Taluk Rural Station (Law and Order) had registered a crime, that the petitioner was placed under suspension for certain alleged lapses on his part leading to theft, that on 26.7.1994 charges were framed against the petitioner by the 1st respondent, that the petitioner submitted his explanation on 18.8.1994, that on 9.1.1996 the order of suspension was revoked and the petitioner was reinstated, that the Extension Officer (Co-operation) in the office of the 1st respondent recorded the statement of the petitioner and forwarded the same to the 1 st respondent, that there has been no further proceedings such as show cause notice and communication of Enquiry Officer's report, that no final orders had been passed on the charges framed against the petitioner, as prescribed by Panchayat Establishment (Appointment and Punishment) Rules, 1965, that suddenly 11.3.1996, the 1st respondent ordered recovery of Rs.27,000 from the petitioner and a sum of Rs.27,000 from the night watchman Narasimhan to be recovered in monthly instalments of Rs.500 each from their respective salary, and that being aggrieved the present writ petition has been preferred.

(3.) THE 1st respondent had not realised his responsibility and had failed to act in the manner prescribed by the Rules. In terms of Rule 23(2)(a) and (b) it is incumbent on the part of the 1st respondent to reduce the imputation to the form of a definite charge or charges and communicate the statement of allegation on which charges are framed and the other circumstances which is being taken into consideration in passing the orders. THE 1st respondent should have called upon the delinquent to submit his written statement of his defence and to state whether he wants to have an oral enquiry or only to be heard in person. At the enquiry oral evidence shall be let in and the person who is charged shall be entitled to cross examine witnesses. After enquiry referred to clause (a) of Rule has been completed, the executive authority shall record his findings on which charge he holds guilty and after issuing show cause notice about the conclusion reached by the Executive Officer and after considering the representation submitted by the delinquent, the Executive Officer shall pass final orders and impose such penalty. This procedure has not been followed and penalty has been imposed without following the procedure prescribed by the Rules.