S. Selvarani Sridevi vs The District Collector

S. Nagamuthu, J.—The petitioner claims to be the President of Theethampatti Panchayat, Kayathar Panchayat Union, Thoothukudi District. Previously also, she was the President of the said Panchayat. The third respondent was working as Panchayat Clerk. The Panchayat, by a Resolution dated 02.12.2006, dismissed the third respondent from service on certain allegations. Challenging the same, the third respondent filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. (MD). No. 1834 of 2007. By order dated 15.11.2007, this Court held that no enquiry was held and hence there was violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the order of dismissal was not sustainable. Accordingly, this Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of dismissal, however, giving liberty to the Panchayat to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law, based on the charge memorandum issued to the third respondent on 08.11.2006.

In pursuance of the same, the Panchayat called the third respondent to submit her explanation for the charge memorandum, which she had promptly did. But without appointing an Enquiry Officer and without conducting enquiry, the Panchayat Board called the third respondent and directly enquired her. She gave a written explanation again denying the charges. The Panchayat Board considered the explanation and passed a Resolution on 22.08.2008, dismissing the third respondent from service.

As against the same, the third respondent filed an appeal to the Block Development Officer, Kayathar Panchayat Union. The Block Development Officer, after having considered the grounds of appeal, by order dated 14.10.2008, in No. Thi. 3/61/08, allowed the appeal and set aside the punishment. As against the same, the Panchayat preferred an appeal to the District Collector, Thoothukudi.

The District Collector, Thoothukudi, by his Proceedings in No. U. Ni. 7/7410/2007 dated 20.02.2009, dismissed the said appeal, thereby confirming the order of the Block Development Officer. However, in the order, an observation has been made that lesser punishment could be imposed on the third respondent. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent and also perused the records carefully.

At the outset, I should say that for more than one reason, this writ petition has to be dismissed. First of all, the writ petition has been filed by one S. Selvarani Sridevi in her individual capacity. Admittedly, she is not the employer of the third respondent and she did not dismiss the third respondent from service. The third respondent was an employee of the Theethampatti Panchayat. Therefore, if at all there is anyone who is aggrieved by the order of the District Collector, it should be the Panchayat and not the individual. The Panchayat has not filed any writ petition before this Court. It may be true that the petitioner S. Selvarani Sridevi, happens to be the President of the Panchayat, but she has not filed the writ petition representing the Panchayat. On this technical ground, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

Not only on that, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed for another important ground also. Earlier, as I have already stated, when the third respondent was dismissed from service, she challenged the same by filing a writ petition before this Court. In that writ petition, a specific finding was given by this Court that there was no enquiry held, no opportunity afforded and thus, the principles of natural justice had not been followed before imposing punishment of dismissal. It was on this ground only the writ petition was allowed. However, liberty was given to the Panchayat to follow the procedure established under law, to hold enquiry and then to pass appropriate orders. It is unfortunate that even after the said order passed by this Court, no such enquiry was held. As I have pointed out, after the order of this Court, the third respondent was called to the Panchayat Board Meeting, in which she was called upon to submit a written explanation. Again, in that also, she explained the matter, denying the charges. Thereafter, no Enquiry Officer was appointed, no enquiry was held, no document was proved in evidence, no oral evidence was let in and the principles of natural justice was not at all followed. Simply, the explanation offered by the third respondent was considered by the Panchayat Board in its meeting and the third respondent was again dismissed from service. This again, is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, the order of dismissal cannot be allowed to sustain at all. In such view of the matter, the Block Development Officer was right in setting aside the order of punishment. The District Collector, of course, dismissed the appeal filed by the Panchayat, but he has made certain observation in the body of the order that a lesser punishment could be imposed on the third respondent. This observation is contrary to the final verdict of the District Collector. When the District Collector had concurred with the findings of the Block Development Officer, he cannot make a contrary observation in the body of the order that lesser punishment could be imposed. In my considered opinion, since it is only an observation, the same cannot be enforced in law. Ultimately, as I have already pointed out, the appeal filed by the Panchayat was dismissed and the order of the Block Development Officer was confirmed, by the District Collector, Thoothukudi. Therefore, as of now, the order of dismissal has been set aside, which I am also confirming herein. In such view of the matter, I find no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that further liberty may be afforded to the Panchayat to appoint an Enquiry Officer to hold enquiry and then to pass fresh order. In the normal course, this Court would have done it so, but in the present case, the earlier order of dismissal was made in the year 2006. That was set aside by this Court, wherein this Court made a specific finding that the principles of natural justice were not followed. That is the reason why further liberty was afforded to the Panchayat to hold enquiry. Despite that, the Panchayat had not cared to follow the procedure established by law, to appoint an Enquiry Officer to hold enquiry. Therefore, in my considered opinion, giving liberty to the Panchayat again will only unnecessarily prolong the matter and the Panchayat does not deserve such kind of relief in this writ petition. As a matter of fact, this writ petition should have been dismissed with costs. But having regard to the plea made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am not imposing cost. Further, for the occurrence which took place somewhere in 2005-2006, allowing enquiry to be held in 2014, will again be violative of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner''s counsel for liberty to hold fresh enquiry, is rejected.