Dismissed

S.Ramaraj, v. the District Collector

Madras HC8 Sept 2017WA(MD)/1200/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging a transfer order against a Village Secretary. The court held that no formal enquiry was needed as the appellant admitted guilt by complying with a payment notice, and the audit authority's findings were sufficient to sustain the transfer.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed, upholding the impugned order of transfer.

S.Ramaraj, Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 08.09.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.A(MD)No.1200 of 2017 and C.M.P.(MD)No.8414 of 2017 against WP(MD)No.15888 of 2017

¶7

S.Ramaraj .. Appellant/Petitioner Vs.

¶8

The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶9

The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat), Vembakottai,

¶10

Virudhunagar District. .. Respondents/Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the order dated 24.08.2017 made in W.P.(MD)No.15888 of 2017.

¶12

Prayer in WP(MD)No.15888/2017 :

¶13

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent 10.08.2017 made in Na.Ka.No.R/21789/2017 and consequential proceedings of the second respondent dated 17.08.2017 made in Na.Ka.B4/2299/13 and quash the both as illegal and unconstitutional.

¶14

For Appellant : Mr.A.Sivaji

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen Additional Government Pleader

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

[JUDGMENT of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.]

¶19

¶20

The unsuccessful writ petitioner is on appeal challenging the order dated 24.08.2017 dismissing W.P.(MD)No.15888 of 2017 filed by the appellant herein.

¶21

2.The appellant was appointed as Secretary in Thayilpatti Village panchayat, Virudhunagar District. The Assistant Director of Rural Development (Audit), Virudhunagar served a show cause notice calling upon him to explain regarding the non remittence of house tax and water tax collection in the bank account. The amount involved was Rs.47,063/-. Following the direction of Assistant Director of Rural Development (Audit), Virudhunagar, the appellant remitted the entire amount. Thereafter, the first respondent herein issued the impugned order dated 10.08.2017 directing the second respondent herein to transfer the appellant from Thayilpatti Village Panchayat to Valayapatti Panchayat. The second respondent passed the consequential order dated 17.08.2017.

¶22

3.The allegation of the appellant is that the proceedings are traceable to a pseudonymous complaint lodged by one Raveendran of T.Ramalingapuram Village, Virudhunagar District. Questioning the order of transfer, the appellant herein filed W.P.(MD)No.15888 of 2017. In the grounds filed in support of the writ petition, the appellant specifically contended that in view of the interim order of stay granted in W.P.(MD)No.16884 of 2013 staying the operation of Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat Secretaries (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013, the transfer order is liable to be quashed. The appellant further contended that the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction.

¶23

4.The learned Judge noted that the appellant had clearly committed irregularity and therefore sustained the order of transfer and dismissed the writ petition. Questioning the same, this writ appeal has been filed.

¶24

5.Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶25

6.The learned counsel for the appellant rested his entire case on Rule 11 (1) of Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat Secretaries (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013 issued by the G.O.M.S.No.72, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj (E5),9^th July 2013. The said provision reads as under.

¶26

''11.Transfer:-

¶27

(1)Transfer of a person holding the post shall be made only on administrative grounds supported by valid reasons and after proper enquiry by the authorities concerned.

¶28

(2) Transfer and postings within the Block shall be made by the Block Develpment Officer (Village Panchayats) of the Panchayat Union concerned. Transfer https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and postings to other Blocks within the District shall be made by the Personal Assistant (Development) to the

¶29

¶30

Collector. All transfers and postings within the Block and the District shall be done in consultation with the Executive Authority of the Village Panchayat concerned. The Commissioner/Director of Rural Develpment and Panchayat Raj is the competent authority to made transfer from one district to another district based on the specific report form the Collector.''

¶31

7.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that only after proper enquiry is conducted by the authorities concerned, transfer order could have been made. In this case, such enquiry was not conducted by any of the respondents. We are unable to agree with the said submission for more reasons than one.

¶32

8.Firstly, the stand of the appellant herein before the learned single Judge was that the said Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat Secretaries (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013 are applicable to him. He would also refer an interim order of stay of the said rules passed by this Court. We have not been informed as to whether the stay order is still enforce. In any event after taking a specific plea that the Rules issued by G.O.M.S.No.72, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj (E5),9^th July 2013 is not applicable to him, in view of the interim stay passed by this Court, it is not open to the appellant now to place reliance on the very same Rule.

¶33

9.Secondly, in the instant case, the appellant was put on notice that he had not remitted the house tax and water tax collection in the bank account. He was directed to remit the amount of Rs.47,063/- in the account of the panchayat.

¶34

10.Admittedly the appellant complied the said direction and remitted the said amount. Therefore, the question of holding enquiry in this case does not even arise. The appellant by his own conduct had admitted that he was guilty of irregularity. Therefore, holding an enquiry does not arise. In this case there was an enquiry by the audit official. In a matter of financial irregularity, it is the audit Wing which is competent to hold the enquiry. The first respondent is the Inspector of Panchayats. Therefore the authority and jurisdiction of the first respondent to direct transfer of the appellant cannot be questioned. There is obsolutely no merit in this Writ appeal. It stands dismissed.

¶35

Sd/Assistant Registrar (AS)

¶36

/True Copy/

¶37

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶39

¶40

To:

¶41

The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶42

The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat), Vembakottai, Virudhunagar District.

¶43

- 1 CC TO MrT.S.MOHAMED MOHIDEEN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 77577 + 1 CC TO Mr.A.SIVAJI, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 78137

¶44

VSG/RMI

¶45

TE/MR-KKR/SAR-3 : 20/12/2017 : 4P/5C

¶46

W.A(MD)No.1200 of 2017 and C.M.P.(MD)No.8414 of 2017 against WP(MD)No.15888 of 2017 08.09.2017

¶47

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Ramaraj, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ramaraj, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Management Vs the Presiding Officer

The Management of Vs the Presiding Officer

P.M.Kanavapeer Vs the Executive Engineer

Madurai Bench of Madras High Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M/S.Sashwath Constructons(P) Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

A. Manjula Vs the Chairman