Dismissed

Nagaraj v. The Inspector of Panchayat-cum-District Collector

Madras HC5 Jun 2023WP/13647/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner Panchayat President challenged proceedings withdrawing his cheque signing power due to alleged misappropriation. Court found no illegality in emergency action by the Collector and dismissed the writ petition, keeping interim measures valid until the enquiry concludes.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; interim arrangement of withdrawal of cheque signing power continues until final enquiry under Section 205.

Nagaraj Vs The Inspector of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.13647 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.06.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

W.P.No.13647 of 2023 and WMP No.13319 of 2023

Mr.Nagaraj

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Inspector of Panchayat-cum-
District Collector Krishnagiri District Krishnagiri.
2.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) Panchayat Union Thally, Krishnagiri District.
3.The Zonal Deputy Block Development Officer Unit-III
Kodiyam Village Panchayat
Thally Panchayat Union Krishnagiri District.	.. Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.5442/2021/A3, dated 23.01.2023 and quash the same.

¶12

Page 1 of 6

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

For Petitioner Mr.M.P.Saravanan

¶15

For Respondents Mr.C.Selvaraj Additional Government Pleader for R1 Mr.P.Harish Government Advocate for R2, R3

¶16

W.P.No.13647 of 2023

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The President of Kodiyalam Panchayat has filed this writ petition challenging the proceedings of the 1^st respondent in Na.Ka.No.5442/2021/A3, dated 23.01.2023 initiated u/s 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') wherein the cheque signing power of the petitioner has been withdrawn and the same has has been assigned to the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents.

¶19

2.The case of the petitioner is that he is the elected President of Kodiyalam Panchayat. According to the petitioner, he does not know to read and write Tamil and English and he went by the advise given by the Panchayat Secretary. Unfortunately, certain payments were made during the years 2020 and 2021 to private individuals towards completion of work and this payment was not in accordance with the guidelines. In view of the same, proceedings have been initiated u/s 205 of the Act by the 1^st respondent by issuing a notice dated 16.5.2022, pointing out certain misappropriation and a reply was also given by the petitioner dealing with every charge made against the petitioner.

¶20

Page 2 of 6

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P.No.13647 of 2023

¶23

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1^st respondent straight away invoked the emergency power u/s 203 of the Act, through the impugned proceedings dated 23.01.2023 and withdrew the cheque signing power which was handed over to the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

¶24

4.Heard Mr.P.Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Additional Government Pleader for R1 and Mr.P.Harish, learned Government Advocate for R2 and R3.

¶25

5.There is no dispute with regard to the fact that proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner u/s 205 of the Act on the ground of misappropriation. On going through the reply given by the petitioner, it is seen that the petitioner is feigning ignorance and the petitioner has taken a stand that these are payments made to private persons during the pandemic period for the work done by them for the Panchayat. That apart, the petitioner has also taken a stand that these payments were made on the advise given by the Secretary of the Panchayat. Alleged misappropriation had taken place during the years 2020 and 2021 and the amount in question is quite significant.

¶26

6.In the light of the above development, the 1^st respondent thought it fit to exercise the emergency power u/s 203 of the Act. Such a power has been vested upon the District Collector to deal with an emergency situation. The 1^st respondent found that payments are

¶27

Page 3 of 6

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.No.13647 of 2023

¶30

being made by the petitioner to private individuals repeatedly during the year 2020 and 2021 and hence, the emergency powers were exercised to ensure that the funds of the Panchayat is safeguarded and payment is made in accordance with law. Such decision taken by the 1^st respondent does not suffer from any illegality.

¶31

7.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 1^st respondent submitted that the petitioner has already given a reply for the notice issued by the 1^st respondent while initiating proceedings u/s 205 of the Act and steps are being taken to proceed further as stipulated u/s.205(2) of the Act. If the 1^st respondent is not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, the 1^st respondent will proceed further to express his opinion and forward a proposal for the removal of the petitioner to ascertain the views of the Village Panchayat. Thereafter, the procedure prescribed u/s 205(3) to 205(11) will be followed. If the 1^st respondent is satisfied with the explanation, the proceedings will be withdrawn. In view of the same, the interim arrangement made by the 1^st respondent u/s 203 of the Act shall continue, till a final decision is taken on the proceedings initiated u/s 205 of the Act. Such a decision will enure to the public interest.

¶32

8.In the light of the above discussion, this Court does not find any ground to interfere

¶33

with the impugned proceedings of the 1^st respondent initiated u/s 203 of the Act and the same shall continue, till a final decision is taken on the proceedings initiated u/s 205 of the Act.

¶34

Page 4 of 6

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P.No.13647 of 2023

¶37

9.Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,

¶38

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶39

05.06.2023 2/2

¶40

KP Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation :Yes/No

¶41

¶42

1.The Inspector of Panchayat-cum District Collector Krishnagiri District Krishnagiri. 2.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) Panchayat Union Thally, Krishnagiri District.

¶43

3.The Zonal Deputy Block Development Officer Unit-III Kodiyam Village Panchayat Thally Panchayat Union Krishnagiri District.

¶44

Page 5 of 6

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.P.No.13647 of 2023

¶47

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

W.P.No.13647 of 2023

05.06.2023 2/2

Page 6 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Nagaraj v. The Inspector of Panchayat-cum-District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagaraj v. The Inspector of Panchayat-cum-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

Selvanathan Vs The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest

The General Manager Vs T.Mahalingam

Sowrirajan venkata Varadhachari Vs The Commissioner

S.Abdul suban sahib Vs The District Collector

M.S.Maasen Enterprises Vs The Managing Director

Mr.S.Sumermull Baid, Vs The Commissioner