Admit. By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner is the President of Kottaiyur Village Panchayat, Thiruvallur Taluk & District. On the allegation that the petitioner had committed some irregularities, the first respondent issued a show cause notice dated 4.7.2008 under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act calling upon him to submit his explanation regarding the said charges. It is further stated by the petitioner that he submitted an explanation on 21.8.2008 denying the allegations made against him. Thereafter, as required under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, a meeting of the village Panchayat was held by the Tahsildar in which majority of the members opposed the move for removal of the petitioner. However, after receiving the view of the panchayat and report of the Tahsildar, the first respondent by his Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.16458/08/A3 dated 7.10.2008 passed an order under Section 205(11) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act removing the petitioner from the post. Curiously, even before the order could be passed, notification was issued under Section 205(11) of the Act in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 1.10.2008 as if the petitioner had already been removed from the post. Challenging the order of the District Collector dated 7.10.2008 as well as the notification dated 1.10.2008, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.
3. Though several grounds have been raised in the writ petition, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would confine his argument only to the ground that the notification dated 1.10.2008 as well as the order of the District Collector dated 7.10.2008 should be rendered invalid on the sole ground that the order has been given effect to retrospectively from 1.10.2008, whereas, the order removing the petitioner from the post itself was made only on 7.10.2008. The learned Senior counsel relies on a judgment of this Court reported in 1976 (II) MLJ 182 in K.V.Kandasamy Gounder, President Negamam Town Panchayat, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District, wherein Hon'ble Justice S.Mohan,(as he then was) while dealing with an identical situation has set aside both the order of the Inspector of Panchayat removing the petitioner therein from the post as well as the Gazette notification and had remitted the matter back to the Collector for fresh consideration. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that on the above sole ground, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the matter needs to be remitted back to the Collector for fresh consideration.
4. Though a detailed counter has been filed disputing most of the grounds raised in the writ petition, the above ground, wherein, specifically, the petitioner has stated that the impugned notification as well as the order are invalid on the ground that the same has been given retrospective operation in gross violation of Section 205(11) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, has not been disputed.
5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions.
6. A cursory comparison of Section 149-A(11) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958 and Section 205(11) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act of 1994 would make it clear that both the provisions are in pari materia. While dealing with the removal of Village President by giving retrospective operation of the order of removal under Section 149-A(11) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act in K.V.Kandasamy Gounder's case cited supra, this Court has held as follows:-
"If read in the light of that section, the only conclusion that is possible is a prospective date. However, sub section (12) does not throw any light with regard to the interpretation of sub-section(11) since sub-section contemplates removal only by notification which notification would come into effect on publication. Therefore between the date of the order and the publication the affected President would have time enough to move the Government and seek the postponement of the date specified for removal. This apart, the order of the Collector does not give as to what exactly is the reason that prompted him to fix the date as 13the February, 1976. Perhaps he though that from the date of the passing of the resolution, inasmuch as the Panchayat had expressed in unequivolcal terms in favour of removal of the writ petitioner, it should take effect. It may even be possible to argue under these circumstances that the Inspector did not exercise his statutory function while considering the views of the panchayat since the relates the removal to the date of the resolution. But I am not going into that question. On the short ground that only a prospective date is contemplated under sub-section (11) of section 149-A of the Act, this writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted to the Collector for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made above."
7. The ratio laid down in the above judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In the instant case also, the order removing the petitioner from the post of President was made only on 7.10.2008. I do not understand, as to how even before the order passed by the District Collector, the removal could be published in the Government Gazette dated 1.10.2008. It shows that the entire proceeding has been made in a hurried manner without proper application of mind. Applying the ratio laid down in the above judgment and having regard to the facts stated above, I am of the view that it is a fit case, where the impugned Gazette notification as well as the impugned order should be quashed.
8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed ; the Gazette notification dated 1.10.2008 and impugned order of the District Collector in Na.Ka.NO.16458/08/A3 dated 7.10.2008 are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the first respondent for fresh consideration strictly in accordance with law by affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
nvsri To
1.The Inspector of Panchayats & District Collector Tiruvallur District.
Thiruvallur
2.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Rural Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
3.The Tahsildar, Thiruvallur Taluk, Thiruvallur