The Writ Appeal filed by a Panchayat Assistant challenging the confirmation of his dismissal was dismissed. The Court held that the evidence of misappropriation was clear and the Single Judge correctly declined to interfere with the enquiry officer s findings.
The Writ Appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.A.(MD)No.1350 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.02.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
W.A.(MD)No.1350 of 2016
M.Muthukumar
...Appellant
/Vs./
3.The President, Kasitharmam Village Panchayat, Kadayanallur Panchayat Union, Tirunelveli.
...Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act, to allow the writ appeal and to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.13343 of 2016 dated 27.08.2011.
1/8
W.A.(MD)No.1350 of 2016
For Appellant : Mr.RM.Loganathan For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Manikkam (R1 & R2) Special Government Pleader Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen (R3)
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.)
This writ appeal has been arisen out of the order passed by this Court in WP(MD)No.13343 of 2011 dated 27.08.2014, which was flled challenging the order passed by the first respondent, who had confirmed the punishment of dismissal of the writ petitioner.
2. The case of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner was
working as Panchayat Assistant in the third respondent Panchayat, who
had issued a charge memo to the writ petitioner levelling seven charges, one of which is misappropriation of fund, which was found at the time of inspection. The writ petitioner withdrew a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of cheque from the account of Mahathma Gandhi Rural Employment Scheme, which should be credited into the panchayat account. Then only
2/8
W.A.(MD)No.1350 of 2016
it can be spent. But, the writ petitioner utilized the same for a period of six months without paying to the Panchayat account. Being not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the writ petitioner, the third respondent appointed an enquiry officer to hold an enquiry into the charges levelled against the writ petitioner.
3. The further case of the writ petitioner is that based on the enquiry report, the third respondent has also passed a resolution dismissing the writ petitioner from service. Challenging the same, the writ petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent, who has also confirmed the punishment of dismissal from service. Challenging the same, the writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner with a direction to reinstate the writ petitioner into service. This Court also dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the writ petitioner is before this Court by way of filing this appeal.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the amount which is said to have been misappropriated has been handed
3/8
W.A.(MD)No.1350 of 2016
over to the third respondent. He utilised the same and returned the said amount only after a period of six months. Only thereafter, the same has been credited to the Panchayat account. The third respondent is also having liability for such transaction in question. There is no proper enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer has not even examined the writ petitioner / appellant. There is also no opportunity given to the writ petitioner / appellant to adduce further evidence. Hence, he prayed this Court to allow this writ appeal.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that it was only the village panchayat, who had given a complaint against the writ petitioner / appellant that he had misappropriated the aforesaid amount. But, no complaint has been given against the President of Panchayat that he had used the said money. Purposely, the writ petitioner / appellant has taken a new stand that the President has taken the amount and utilised the same for his personal use. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of this writ appeal.
4/8
W.A.(MD)No.1350 of 2016
6 . This Court considered the rival submissions made on either
side.
7 . It is seen that only on the date of inspection, the respondents found that the writ petitioner / appellant has misappropriated the money and after the date of inspection only, he deposited the money. But according to the writ petitioner / appellant, the third respondent is holding the said amount and he utilized the same.
8. It is also admitted by the writ petitioner / appellant that he withdrew the sum of Rs.50,000/-. As a Panchayat Assistant, he should remit the same to the Panchayat account. Instead he remitted the same only after inspection, after a period of six months. This itself clearly amounts to misappropriation of panchayat money. The learned Single Judge of this Court only by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly dismissed the writ petition holding that this Court cannot go into the findings of the enquiry officer.
5/8
W.A.(MD)No.1350 of 2016
9. Further, the writ petitioner / appellant has not shown any material to prove that the third respondent misappropriated the amount. The writ petitioner / appellant's explanation was also not satisfactory, as it was the third respondent, who brought to the knowledge of the District Collector that there was some misappropriation of fund. That being the case, the submission that the third respondent has misappropriated the money cannot be accepted. The enquiry officer has given him an opportunity to the writ petitioner / appellant, only for which, the writ petitioner / appellant has given his explanation and hence, the statement that the dismissal order has been passed in violation of principles of naturral justice is not accepted.
10. In view of the aforesaid observations, this Court is not inclined to accept the case of the writ petitioner / appellant. It is the duty of the Panchayat Assistant to remit the amount to the Village Panchayat account and hence, the enquiry officer's finding that the writ petitioner / appellant has misappropriated the money has been proved. Hence, this Court does not any reason to interfere with the order of the learned
6/8
W.A.(MD)No.1350 of 2016
Single Judge of this Court passed in the writ petition. The Writ Appeal therefore fails and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as
to costs.
(V.B.S.J.) & (K.K.R.K.J.) 22.02.2024
NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes
7/8
W.A.(MD)No.1350 of 2016
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J. and K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
sm
TO:-
Judgment made in W.A.(MD)No.1350 of 2016
Dated: 22.02.2024
8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the confirmation of dismissal when the employee withdrew public funds and utilized them for six months without crediting to the Panchayat account.
Whether the enquiry conducted by the Panchayat Assistant violated the principles of natural justice by failing to examine the appellant or allow further evidence.
M. Muthukumar
The District Collector, Tirunelveli District
The Block Development Officer, Kadayanallur Panchayat Union, Tirunelveli District
The President, Kasitharmam Village Panchayat, Kadayanallur Panchayat Union, Tirunelveli
V. Bhavani Subbaroyan
K. K. Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
