This Writ Petition has been filed by transfer of O.A.No.1847/2002 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras praying to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in connection with the letter dated 24.12.2001 and quash the same.
Heard Mr.R. Singaravelan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Subbiah, learned counsel for the Respondents.
The petitioner was appointed as Overhead Tank Operator on 16.09.1998, in Valaypatti panchayat. While so, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 24.12.2001, making certain allegations without conducting any enquiry.
2. The petitioner filed in O.A.No.1847 of 2002 before the Tribunal (Transferred as W.P.No.8310 of 2007) to set aside the order 24.12.2001 of the 2nd respondent. While admitting the Original Application, the Tribunal passed an Interim Order. The petitioner states that he continues in the service, in view of the interim order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order was passed without following the principle of natural justice, and the same was passed without issuing any charge memo and without holding any enquiry. It is contended that the impugned order makes certain bald allegations and the termination order is passed without any enquiry.
The impugned order is extracted here under:-
"jh';fs;. j';fSf;Ff; bfhLf;fg;gl;l FoePh; Mg;gnul;lh; (x/vr;/o/) gzpia rhptu bra;ahj jtWf;fhft[k;. eph;thfj;jpw;F fl;Lg;glhky; bray;gl;l Fw;wj;jpw;fhft[k;. Cuhl;rpapd; bray; mYtyh; vd;w Kiwapy; cs;shl;rp rl;lg;gphpt[ (8) 94d; go ehd; j';fis 24/12/2001 Kjy; epue;jukhf gzpePf;fk; bra;J cj;jut[ gpwg;gpf;fpnwd;/ ,e;j cj;jut[ cldoahf mKYf;F tUtjhy; j[';fs; trk; cs;s Cuhl;rp jsthlr; rhkhd;fis cldoahf cs;shl;rp kd;w vGj;jhplnkh. nehpnyh xg;gilf;Fk;go mwpt[Wj;jg;gLfpwPh;fs;."
4. The termination is based on certain allegations. It is seen that no enquiry had been held before passing the termination order. The termination had resulted in deprivation of livelihood. Hence, before terminating the service of an employee based on allegations, an enquiry contemplated under the Panchayat Act should have been held. The impugned order is passed in violation of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and hence the same is liable to be set aside. Reference may also be had to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.K.Yadav -Vs- J.M.A Industries Ltd., reported in 1993 (3)SCC 259.
5. Further, the second respondent is not the competent authority to pass the order of dismissal. It is only the first respondent, who can pass the termination order, as seen from Section 106 of the Panchayats Act. Hence the impugned order is without jurisdiction.
6. In the above circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
14.10.2009 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Adl D. HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
Adl To
1. Virudhu Nagar Panchayat Union, Rep. by the Commissioner, Virudhu Nagar Panchayat Union, Virudhu Nagar.
2. Valayapatti Panchayat, Rep. by the President, Valayapatti, Virudhunagar W.P.No. 8310 of 2007 14.10.2009