Allowed

P. Samyanathan v. the District Collector

Madras HC5 Oct 2021WP/29452/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed the Writ Petition, holding that the petitioner's suspension without a prior show cause notice violated principles of natural justice contravening G.O.Ms.No.175 clause 5, and set aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of suspension dated 03.12.2008 is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

P. Samyanathan Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.10.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶5

W.P. No.29452 of 2008 and M.P. No.1 of 2008

¶6

P.Samynathan ...Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The District Collector (Inspector of Panchayats), Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

¶9

The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Annur Panchayat Union, Coimbatore District.

¶10

M.Jambu,

¶11

Panchayat President, Kattampatti Village Panchayat, Annur Block, Coimbatore District. ...Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order bearing Roc.No.205/2008/B2 dated 03.12.2008 of the second respondent herein and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Viswanathan

¶14

For Respondents : (*)Mr.S.John J.Rajasingh Government Advocate - R1 & R2 : No Appearance - R3

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Heard Mr.K.S.Viswanathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and (*)Mr.S.John J.Rajasingh , learned Government Advocate for the District Collector/R1 and the Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat)/R2.

¶17

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

¶18

The third respondent is M.Jambu, Panchayat President and though service is complete on him and his name printed in the cause list, there is no appearance caused by or on his behalf.

¶19

The petitioner challenges an order dated 03.12.2008 passed by R2 suspending the petitioner without even a provision for payment of subsistence allowance. The short point on which I am persuaded to entertain and allow this Writ Petition is that the impugned order of suspension dated 03.12.2008 has not been preceded by a show cause notice.

¶20

It appears that at the time when the Writ Petition had initially come up for admission, an order of interim stay of the impugned order of suspension was granted by a learned Single Judge on 12.12.2008. The miscellaneous petition thereafter has come up on 30.09.2010 and after hearing on both sides, the interim order granted on 12.12.2008 was made absolute. Though a date was fixed for final hearing of matter in the first week of December, 2010, the writ petition has seen the light of the day only today.

¶21

In view of the fact that the impugned order does not refer to any prior show cause notice or any notice calling upon the petitioner to appear and tender any explanation in regard to why he not be suspended, a specific query was put to the learned Government Pleader to verify the records and confirm in writing whether a show cause notice or any notice was issued to the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order above.

¶22

The procedure is in line with clause 5 of G.O.Ms.No.175 Rural Development & Panchayat (E5) Department which provides for the service of a show cause notice as a pre-requisite to an order imposing punishment, including suspension. The relevant portion of the Government Order reads as follows:

¶23

'v fpuhk Cuhl;rpapd; eph;thfj;jpy;. Cuhl;rp cjtpahsh; Jiwapd; tpjpKiwfis kPwy;. XG';fPdk;. ftdf; Fiwt[ jFjpapd;ik. flik jtWjy;. jtwhd eltof;iffs; nghd;wtw;wpy; <Lgl;lhy; me;j Cuhl;rp cjtpahsiu fz;ldk;. mguhjk;. Cjpa cah;t[ my;yJ gzp cah;it epWj;jp itj;jy; my;yJ K:g;g[g; gl;oaypy; juk; ,wf;Fjy;. my;yJ fPH;epiyg;gzpaplj;jpy; itj;jy; my;yJ fhyKiw Cjpaj;jpy; fPH;epiyapy; itj;jy;. jw;fhypf gzpePf;fk; bra;jy;. gzpapypUe;J ePf;Fjy;. my;yJ gzptpyf;fk; bra;ayhk;/ ,Ug;gpDk; mjw;F Kd;ghf me;j Cuhl;rp cjtpahsiu neuo tprhuizf;F miHg;gJ cl;gl mth;jdJ tpsf;fj;ij mspf;f mtUf;F nghjpa tha;g;g[ mspf;fg;gl;oUf;f ntz;Lk;/ '

¶24

Written instructions have been circulated by the learned Government Pleader bearing Na.Ka.No.1533/2021/A1, dated

¶25

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

¶26

23.09.2021 confirming unambiguously that no show cause notice or any notice has been issued to the petitioner prior to the impugned order of suspension. The passing of the impugned order of suspension is thus in violation of the principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside.

¶27

In light of the aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside and this Writ Petition, allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

(18/10/2021)

(*) Corrected as per order dated 22.10.2021 made in W.P.No.29452 of 2008

¶32

//True Copy//

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶34

kbs

¶35

¶36

The District Collector (Inspector of Panchayats), Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

¶37

The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Annur Panchayat Union,

¶38

Coimbatore District.

¶39

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.52344

¶40

W.P. No.29452 of 2008 and M.P. No.1 of 2008

¶41

PM(CO) RLD(CO) RGA(02/11/2021)

¶42

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

P. Samyanathan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Samyanathan 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

P.Nedunchezian Vs the Deputy Inspector General

Dr. M.G.Krishna Baba Mds, Vs the Director of Medical

Mr.S.Joseph Jeyasingh, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

G Johnsi Christobel Vs C.Poornachandran

N.Anbarasu, Vs State of Tamilnadu

P.Freddy Vs the State of Tamil Nadu