AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Dhanapalan, J.—Heard Mr. R.Thamaraiselvan, for Mr. M.K.Raja, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. V.M.Velumani, learned
Special Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents.
In this Writ Petition, a direction has been sought for by the Petitioner to direct the fourth Respondent to conduct the proceedings dated
15.7.2011 in Na.Ka. No. A3/1443/2011 u/s 207 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, after giving an opportunity to the Petitioner for giving his
explanation as against the charge memo dated 29.6.2010 in Letter No. 13762/PRIV/2009-4.
It is the case of the Petitioner that he is the Chairman of Sankarapuram Panchayat Union, Villupuram District from 2006, and he was elected by
the members of Sankarapuram Union, by election and the post was democratic and unopposed and therefore, his elevation to the office was
unanimous. He claims that he is discharging his duties since then. He is functioning independently without aligning with any political party. He claims
to be a non-political person.
According to the Petitioner, in the last year, for political reasons, the Government through Principal Secretary, Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj Department, issued an order against him calling upon him to offer an explanation to the various charges levelled against him. The
charges levelled against him were not in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, as to the Rules or provisions of the Act and it was not
supported by any necessary document so as to give his explanation and he requested in his letter dated 28.7.2010 to the first Respondent for
furnishing certain documents, for which, the first Respondent did not give any reply. On the other hand, the second Respondent, vide his letter
dated 16.8.2010, instructed him to come in person between 18.8.2010 and 27.8.2010 and verify the records and if necessary, copies can be
taken in the presence of the Assistant Director of Panchayats.
Pursuant to the above communication, the Petitioner visited the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department and requested them to
permit him to inspect and peruse the documents maintained in their office, but was not permitted by the officials in-charge of the Section. They
have said that the documents could not be exposed for administrative reasons and therefore, the writ Petitioner returned home with the hope that
he may be called upon again for inspection of the documents. Therefore, he sent a communication through Fax to the Assistant Director of
Panchayats on 24.9.2010 requesting him to furnish necessary documents to the Deputy Block Development Officer (Planning) so as to enable him
to take copies of the document. He was not called upon and he claims that he was under the impression that the enquiry in respect of the charges
against him, were not present or postponed for indefinite period. In the meanwhile, the General Elections intervened in 2011 and till such time,
there was No. communication in this regard.
While so, the intimation dated 15.7.2011 was sent to him by the fourth Respondent for convening a General Body Meeting on 3.8.2011, u/s
207 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, for which, he sent a communication dated 27.7.2011 through his lawyer, requesting them for permission to
peruse the documents and also requesting them to postpone the proposed meeting to be held on 3.8.2011. Apprehending that they may take
adverse action against him, having No. other option, the Petitioner moved this Court for the above relief on the ground that there was No. sufficient
opportunity, and therefore, the Respondents should be directed to proceed with the enquiry u/s 207 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, after
giving an opportunity to him and to submit his explanation to the charge memo.
The foremost contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the action contemplated by the Respondents shall be in conformity with
the provisions of Section 207 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, and there must be an opportunity provided to give an explanation to the charge
memo framed against the Petitioner.
To the above plea of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Spl.G.P. appearing for the Respondents, after taking instructions from the
Respondents and having gone through the relevant documents with her, submitted that there was sufficient opportunity and the Petitioner was
allowed to peruse the documents, vide proceedings of the Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department,
in Letter No. 13762/PRIV/2009-6, dated 4.10.2010, contents of which reads as follows:
I am directed to invite your attention to the references cited (1. Govt.Lr. No. 13762/PRIV/2009-4, dated 29.6.2010 and 2. Your Lr. No.
01/2010, dated 28.7.2010) and to state that you have been asked to submit your explanation for the charges framed against you within 15 days
from the date of receipt of the Government letter first cited. But, you have sought for permission to peruse the relevant original records and to take
copies of relevant records so as to submit your defence statement.
The Government have decided to permit you to peruse relevant original records and take copies of documents provided they were relevant and
material to the charges. Hence, you may peruse the relevant original documents and take copies of the documents provided they are relevant and
material to the charges within 15 days from the date of receipt of this letter, in the presence of Deputy Secretary concerned, failing which, the case
will be decided on merits based on the records available with the Government.
However, the abovesaid communication dated 4.10.2010 was received by the Petitioner only on 29.10.2010.
In the further communication dated 15.3.2011 of the Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, in
Letter No. 13762/PRIV/2009-8, to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kallakurichi Revenue Division, Villupuram District, it is stated as follows:
It has been brought to the notice of the Government that Thiru.N. Chandrasekar, Chairman, Sankarapuram Panchayat Union has misused the
official capacity and Government vehicle illegally for criminal and antisocial activities. In the Government letter 1st cited (1. Govt.Lr. No.
13762/PRIV/2009-4, dated 29.6.2010), charges were framed against Thiru.N. Chandrasekar, Chairman, Sankarapuram Panchayat Union for the
above said allegations and he has been requested to submit his explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter. He has received
the charge letter on 19.7.2010.
In the reference 2nd cited, (2. From Thiru.N. Chandrasekar, Chairman, Sankarapuram Panchayat Union Lr. No. 01/2010, dated 28.7.2010),
Thiru.N. Chandrasekar has requested the Government to permit him to peruse the relevant original records with the assistance of the counsel and
to take copies of relevant records so as to enable him to submit his defence statement on the charges framed against him. In Government letter 3rd
cited, (3. Govt. Lr. No. 13762/PRIV/2009-5, dated 4.10.2010), necessary permission was given to Thiru.N. Chandrasekar to peruse the
relevant original documents and take copies of the documents provided they are relevant and material to the charges against him within 15 days
from the date of receipt of the said letter. He has received the above said letter on 29.10.2010. But he has not turned up for perusal of the records
so far. The time specified for submitting his explanation has already been elapsed.
Accordingly, a copy of the charges framed against Thiru.N. Chandrasekar, Chairman, Sankarapuram Panchayat Union and also copy of the
letter second cited are forwarded herewith and you are requested to place the same before the Panchayat Union Council and obtain the views of
the members of the council on the proposed removal of the Chairman of the said council in accordance with the provisions of Section 207 of the
Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 and send the same to the Government for taking further action in this case urgently.
Lastly on 29.6.2011, in the proceedings in Letter No. 13762/PRIV/2009-9, addressed by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Rural
Development and Panchayat Raj Department, to the fourth Respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kallakurichi Revenue Division, Villupuram
District, it is stated as follows:
I am directed to invite your attention to the reference cited (Government letter No. 13762/PRIV/2009-8, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Department, dated 15.3.2011), wherein you are requested to place a copy of the charges framed against Thiru.N. Chandrasekar, Chairman,
Sankarapuram Panchayat Union and obtain the views of the members of the Council on the proposed removal of the Chairman of the said Council
in accordance with the provisions of Section 207 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 and send the same to the Government for taking further
action in this case. So far, No. report has been received in this regard.
I am, therefore, directed to request you to state whether the meeting of the Council of Sankarapuram Panchayat Union has been convened and
obtained the view of the members in this matter. If so, send a report to Government for taking further action in this case urgently.
Therefore, in the light of the abovesaid communications, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents submitted that the
Respondents are ready to give sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner, but the Petitioner has to co-operate in concluding the proceedings and only
with an intention to drag on the proceedings, the Petitioner again and again insist upon the Respondents to produce certain documents. The learned
Spl.G.P. further informed this Court that the Respondents are ready to follow the procedures contemplated u/s 207 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats
Act and after giving opportunity to the Petitioner and after getting the explanation from him within the time frame, they are prepared to conclude the
proceedings as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act.
In the light of the above background of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the pleadings and submissions made, I have heard the
learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed in the typed set of papers filed along with the Writ Petition and also
the documents/communications placed before this Court.
It is not in dispute that the Petitioner is the Chairman of Sankarapuram Panchayat Union and he is functioning as such. There were charges
framed against him on 29.6.2010, for which, the Petitioner has sent a letter dated 28.7.2010 requesting certain documents and there were certain
communications between the Petitioner and the Respondents on 16.8.2010 for perusal of the documents in the Respondents'' place and thereafter
also, the Petitioner has sent a communication through Fax on 24.9.2010 to the Assistant Director of Panchayats, requesting them to furnish
necessary documents. The information and the relevant communications produced by the Respondents show that the Petitioner has not submitted
his explanation till date.
Now, the Respondents have come forward to conclude the proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act.
It may not be proper for the Petitioner to stand in the way of concluding the proceedings, as it requires the procedures to be followed in
accordance with the said Act. The only grievance of the Petitioner is that he must be given opportunity before proceeding with the matter and also
permit him to peruse the documents.
At this stage, it is worthwhile to refer Section 207 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, which is extracted below:
Section 207: Removal of Chairman of Panchayat Union Council.-(1) If the Government-
(a) of their own motion, or
(b) on a representation in writing signed by not less than two-thirds of the strength of the Panchayat Union Council containing a statement of
charges against the Chairman of the Panchayat Union Council and presented in person to any officer appointed by the Government in this behalf by
any two of the members of the Panchayat Union Council,
are satisfied that the Chairman wilfully omits or refuses to carry out or disobeys the provisions of this Act, or any Rules, By-laws, Regulations or
lawful orders issued thereunder or abuses the powers vested in him, the Government shall, by notice in writing, require the Chairman to offer within
a specified date, his explanation with respect to his acts of omission or commission mentioned in the notice.
(2) If the explanation is received within the specified date and the Government consider that the explanation is satisfactory, the Government may
drop further action with respect to the notice. If No. explanation is received within the specified date or if the explanation received is in their
opinion not satisfactory, the Government shall forward to the Revenue Divisional Officer of the division concerned, a copy of the notice referred to
in Sub-section (1) and the explanation of the Chairman with a proposal for the removal of the Chairman from office for ascertaining the views of
the Panchayat Union Council.
(3) The Revenue Divisional Officer shall then convene a meeting for the consideration of the notice and the explanation, if any, and the proposal for
the removal of the Chairman at the office of the Panchayat Union Council at a time appointed by the Revenue Divisional Officer.
(4) A copy of the notice of the meeting shall be caused to be delivered to the concerned Chairman and to all the members of the Panchayat Union
Council by the Revenue Divisional Officer at least seven days before the date of the meeting.
(5) The Revenue Divisional Officer shall preside at the meeting convened under this section and No. other person shall preside thereat. If within
half an hour appointed for the meeting, the Revenue Divisional Officer is not present to preside at the meeting, the meeting shall stand adjourned to
a time to be appointed and notified to the members by the Revenue Divisional Officer under Sub-section (6).
(6) If the Revenue Divisional Officer is unable to preside at the meeting, he may, after recording his reasons in writing, adjourn the meeting to such
other time as he may appoint. The date so appointed shall be not later than thirty days from the date appointed for the meeting under Sub-section
(3). Notice of not less than seven clear days shall be given to the members of the time appointed for the adjourned meeting.
(7) Save as provided in Sub-sections (5) and (6), a meeting convened for the purpose of considering the notice and the explanation, if any, and the
proposal for the removal of the Chairman under this section shall not, for any reason, be adjourned.
(8) As soon as the meeting convened under this section is commenced, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall read to the Panchayat Union Council
the notice of the Government and the explanation, if any, of the Chairman and the proposal for the removal of the Chairman, for the consideration
of which it has been convened.
(9) There shall be No. debate in any meeting under this section.
(10) The Revenue Divisional Officer shall not speak on the merits of the notice or explanation nor shall he be entitled to vote at the meeting.
(11) The views of the Panchayat Union Council shall be duly recorded in the minutes of the meeting and a copy of the minutes shall forthwith on
the termination of the meeting be forwarded by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the Government.
(12) The Government may, after considering the views of the Panchayat Union Council in this regard in their discretion either remove the Chairman
from office by notification with effect from a date to be specified therein or drop further action.
(13) Any person in respect of whom a notification has been issued under Sub-section (12) removing him from the office of Chairman shall be
ineligible for election as Chairman and for holding any of those offices until the date on which notice of the next ordinary elections to the Panchayat
Union Council is published in the prescribed manner or the expiry of three years from the date specified in the notification whichever is earlier.
It is a settled legal position that if a person is charged, he must know the statement of charges and then, to submit his explanation, he must have
been given necessary documents which are all the basis for framing of charges against him. Therefore, it is a cardinal principle that the person
charged should be given an opportunity to peruse the documents or if it is required to be furnished, it may be furnished to him. But, in the instant
case, it appears that by a communication dated 04.10.2010, the Government has taken a decision to permit the Petitioner to peruse the original
relevant records and take copies of the documents, provided they were relevant and material to the charges. Accordingly, it was informed to him
that he may peruse the original relevant documents and take copies of the documents provided. Further, the said communication was received by
the Petitioner only on 29.10.2010 and therefore, he has requested the Respondents to permit him to submit his explanation within 15 days from the
date of receipt of the letter dated 29.10.2010. It appears that even after receipt of the letter on 29.10.2010, he has not turned up for perusal of the
records so far. Therefore, the Respondents have No. other option except to send a further communication to the Revenue Divisional Officer to
proceed with the meeting of the Council and to send the report, for the charge memo dated 29.6.2010.
From the above proceedings, it is crystal clear that till date, the Petitioner has not perused the documents and also not submitted his
explanation. The consistent stand of the Petitioner is that the documents are most essential to peruse and thereafter, he will submit his explanation.
Therefore, insistingly, he has come out to approach this Court for a direction to provide him an opportunity for giving his explanation to the charge.
In view of the above settled legal position, the Petitioner is entitled to get the relevant documents for his perusal before submitting his
explanation and also to have an opportunity in the proceedings contemplated against him, which is incumbent on the Respondents to permit the
Petitioner to peruse the documents and to proceed to conduct the proceedings after giving him an opportunity. A perusal of the entire happenings
in this case would reveal that till date, the Petitioner has neither perused the documents nor submitted his explanation, but it may be due to the
Petitioner''s attitude. The principles of natural justice require that a person charged could get a fair and reasonable opportunity in every stage of the
proceedings. Therefore, the relief sought for by the Petitioner has to be granted as per the law.
Section 207(1)(a) & (b) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act contemplates that if the Government of their own motion, or on a representation in
writing signed by not less than two-thirds of the strength of the Panchayat Union Council containing a statement of charges against the Chairman of
the Panchayat Union Council and presented in person to any officer appointed by the Government in this behalf by any two of the members of the
Panchayat Union Council, are satisfied that the Chairman wilfully omits or refuses to carry out or disobeys the provisions of the Act, or any Rules,
Bye-laws, Regulations or lawful orders issued thereunder or abuses the powers vested in him, the Government shall, by notice in writing, require
the Chairman to offer within a specified date, his explanation with respect to his acts of omission or commission mentioned in the notice. In the
present case, the Petitioner submitted the explanation requesting the Respondents to permit him to peruse certain documents. Accordingly, the
Government has taken a decision and sent a communication on 04.10.2010. When the Government has taken a decision to permit the Petitioner to
peruse the relevant material documents as per the communication dated 04.10.2010, it appears that there is No. difficulty for them to permit the
Petitioner to peruse the documents before submitting his explanation.
For the foregoing reasons and considering all the relevant circumstances and the factors in this case, this writ petition is disposed of, with a
direction to the Petitioner that after perusal of the relevant original documents material to the charges as per the communication dated 04.10.2010,
he shall submit his explanation within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and the Respondents shall proceed to
conclude the proceedings as contemplated u/s 207 of the Act, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and pass appropriate orders
on merits and in accordance with law, within two weeks from the date of submission of the explanation given by the Petitioner. While doing so, the
Respondents shall act uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order and proceed independently by following the procedures
contemplated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. Till such time, the parties to these proceedings are directed to maintain
status-quo as on date. No. costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.