P CHINNA PONNU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE PERAMBALUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order passed under Section 205 (11) of The Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") removing the petitioner from the post of President, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner is an elected President of Pillur Village Panchayat in Perambalur District. The Inspector of Panchayats (District Collector), Perambalur District by his proceedings in Na. Ka. No. 5271/06/a3, dated 20. 11. 2007 framed as many as 7 charges against him on certain allegations of irregularities said to have been committed by him while discharging his functions as President. The petitioner submitted her explanation wherein she had denied all such allegations made against her. There were several other communications in this regard, which are not very relevant for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition. Finally, the first respondent directed the Tahsildar to hold a meeting to get the views of the Village Panchayat on the above allegations. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Vellore, after recording the views of the Village Panchayat by his proceedings in Na. Ka. No. 1/2008/b1 dated 19. 03. 2008 submitted a report along with the minutes of the Village Panchayat. Admittedly, the petitioner participated in the said meeting. Thereafter, the District Collector issued the impugned order removing the petitioner from the office.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegations contained in the charge memorandum are not at all sufficient to initiate the proceedings under Section 205 of the Act. He would point out that the main charge is the 1st charge, wherein it is alleged that the petitioner failed to appoint a Village Panchayat Assistant in time. He would further submit that the power of appointing Village Panchayat Assistant is vested with Appointment Committee and not with the president. Therefore, the said charge is baseless. He would further submit that in the event the first charge fails, all the other charges, being consequential, should also fail. He would further submit that under Section 205 (11) of the Act, unless the act of the President amounts to willful omission or refusal or disobedience to carryout the provisions of the Act, Rules or Orders, etc. , there can not be any charge under Section 205 of the Act. In this case, according to the petitioner, absolutely, there is no material to show that he willfully omitted to appoint Village Assistant and in similar fashion omitted to discharge the other functions.