S. SUBRAMANIAN Vs. V. VELLAIKAANU AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has been filed for the issue of a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the first respondent's order dated 8th April, 1977 made in NKV. 19/209311/76 removing the petitioner from Presidentship of Aralikottai Panchayat, as confirmed by the second respondent's order in G.O. Rt, No. 1371, Rural Development and Local Administration Department, dated 3lst May, 1977. The writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 4th October, 1977 of Ramanujan, J., dismissing W.M.P. No. 4985 of 1977, which had been filed by the appellant, a third party, for being impleaded as a party to the writ petition on the ground that he had been asked to take charge from the writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) as the President of the Aralikottai Panchayat as a stop -gap arrangement. The appellant claimed to have taken charge as the President of the Panchayat on 9th June, 1977. Ramanujam, J., dismissed the Writ Miscellaneous Petition on the ground that the appellant had no interest in the subject -matter of the writ petition upholding the objections of the petitioner that the appellant is not a necessary party and that his presence is not required to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the writ petition. The petitioner contended in his counter -affidavit filed in the Writ Miscellaneous Petition that he had been legally continuing to discharge his duties as President of the Panchayat till the date of his counter -affidavit, namely, 3rd October, 1977.

(2.) On a complaint of one K.R. Sevugaperumal, a member of the Aralikottai Panchayat presented to the first respondent, Collector of Romanathapuram, on 21st September, 1976 alleging that the petitioner Vellaikannu had committed Certain irregularities in the administration of the Panchayat, the Divisional Development Officer, Devakottai directed the petitioner, by an order dated 17th November, 1976, to produce all the registers of the Panchayat before him on 23rd November, 1976. The first respondent framed 10 charges against the petitioner and called upon him by a notice dated 8th January, 1971, to show cause within 15 days of receipt of the notice, as to why he should not be removed from the Presidentship of the Panchayat under Sec. 149A(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act (XXXV of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in view of those charges. The petitioner was given further time up to 7th February, 1977 to submit his explanation and he was permitted to inspect the records of the Panchayat in the presence of the Divisional Development Officer, Devakottai. The explanation of the petitioner was submitted with a request that it may be accepted and the charges against him dropped. The first respondent caused the charges to be placed before the Panchayat at a meeting held on 9th March, 1977 presided over by the Tahsildar of Tirupattur and attended by seven members of the Panchayat including the petitioner. In that meeting, five members voted against the first respondent's proposed action to remove the petitioner from the Presidentship of the Panchayat, one member Mookkan stated that he does not know anything about charges 2, 8 and 9 and the other members K.R. Sevugaperumal, who presented the petition before the first respondent on 22nd September, 1976 as stated earlier, alone voted in favour of the proposed action. However, the first respondent stated in his impugned order dated 8th April, 1977 that the petitioner's explanation was not satisfactory and unacceptable, that all the charges except Charge No. 8 were proved, that they all related to serious irregularities and that in the interest of the proper administration of the affairs of the Panchayat, he was not accepting the views of the Panchayat as expressed in the meeting held on 9th March, 1977 and had decided to remove the petitioner from the Presidentship of the Panchayat under Sec. 149A(11) of the Act. He, therefore, ordered the removal of the petitioner from the office with effect from 1st May, 1977. The petitioner filed 2 revision petition before the second respondent, the Government of Tamil Nadu, against the first respondent's order. The second respondent rejected that petition by an order dated 3lst May, 1977 saying that they examined the revision petition with reference to the connected records and that there is no case for interference with the order of the first respondent. It is further stated in that order that under Sec. 149A(11) of the Act the Collector, as Inspector, may, after considering the views of the Panchayat, in his discretion, either remove the President from office by notification with effect from a date to be specified therein or drop further action and that the first respondent has reported that the views of the Panchayat and the explanation of the petitioner were duly considered by him and found to be unsatisfactory.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that all the charges were baseless and he had stated in the explanation to the charges that he had the necessary records and vouchers in his possession and in the concerned office of the Divisional Development Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer. The further contention of the petitioner is that the first respondent had no jurisdiction to overrule the views of the Panchayat and remove him from the office and that he had overruled the view of the Panchayat without assigning any reason for doing so and had not exercised his discretion judiciously. The petitioner stated that the first respondent had not called upon him to produce the records to prove his. contention in the explanation submitted by him and acted arbitrarily and with partiality without giving him a proper hearing, at the instigation of the member K.R. Sevugaperumal, who belongs to a different political party and whose brother -in -law was the person who opposed the petitioner in the election for the Presidentship of the Panchayat. So far as the second respondent is concerned, the case of the petitioner is that the second respondent has not properly appreciated all the facts and circumstances and has passed the order dated 31st May, 1977 in a perfunctory and summary manner.