R SHYNI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. S. Periyasami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and G. Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader taking notice for the respondents 1 to 3 and perused the records.

(2.) THE impugned order dated 28. 6. 2007 is an order placing the petitioner under suspension pending further framing of charge-sheet and enquiry. It is seen from the said impugned order that there was an inspection conducted in the Panchayat on 27. 6. 2007 and 28. 6. 2007. The Tahsildar, Pandalur, seized Cash Books and cheques and thereafter a report was sent by the Block Development Officer, Gudalur to the Collector.

(3.) IT was the allegation against the petitioner that she, being the Panchayat Assistant, ignoring the directions, did not get the cheques signed by the President after preparing necessary bills and vouchers and got blank cheques signed. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he is not against the charge being framed against the petitioner but the jurisdiction of the authority, viz. , respondent, to place her under suspension. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by G. O. Ms. No. 175 Rural Development and Panchayat Department dated 05. 12. 2006, the part-time Panchayat Assistants have been brought under time scale of pay and in the Annexure to the said G. O. , it is stated that such a Panchayat Assistant should function under the control of the executive authority of the Panchayat, viz. , Panchayat President. Inasmuch the disciplinary power vests on the executive authority of the Panchayat in terms of Section 106 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 [for short, 'act'], any suspension by any other person is contrary to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the order should be quashed solely on the ground of jurisdiction.