The President Vs B.Muthu — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

The President Vs B.Muthu — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellants; writ appeal dismissed with no costs and connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.(MD)No.3618 of 2023) closed, leaving intact the learned Single Judge's directions for reinstatement and payment of 50% backwages.

Issue for consideration

Whether the removal of the first respondent (Panchayat Assistant/Panchayat Secretary) by communication dated 24.06.2013, passed on the premise that he did not appear for enquiry or offer explanation, satisfied the requirement under Clause 5 of G.O.(Ms)No.175, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 05.12.2006 that due opportunity and direct enquiry be given before dismissal. +2 more

Court's answer

Clause 5 of G.O.(Ms)No.175, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 05.12.2006 requires that before passing an order of dismissal the Panchayat Secretary must be given due opportunity and also be called for direct enquiry.

Ratio / Principle

Straightaway dismissing an employee on the ground that he did not appear for enquiry and did not offer his explanation is impermissible in law.

Key takeaways

Removing a person from service virtually amounts to a capital punishment; such an order must refer to antecedent events, the materials on record and the reason why the employer proposed to dismiss the employee.ratio¶55
The order of removal dated 24.06.2013 is cryptic and does not refer to any adverse materials against the writ petitioner.ratio¶55
The cryptic nature of the original authority's order is an aspect that ought to have been considered by the first and second appellate authorities.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), W.A.(MD)No.336 of 2023 (G.R.Swaminathan & K.Rajasekar, JJ.), 16.06.2025: Writ appeal by the President of Naduvakurichi Minor Panchayat against the order dated 26.04.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.14347 of 2014, whereby the learned Single Judge set aside the termination (communication dated 24.06.2013) of B.Muthu, appointed Panchayat Assistant in 1996 (later working as Panchayat Secretary), modified the punishment to stoppage of increments for three years without cumulative effect, ordered reinstatement and awarded 50% backwages. Held: the employee's service conditions were governed by Clause 5 of G.O.(Ms)No.175, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 05.12.2006, under which, before passing an order of dismissal, the Panchayat Secretary must be given due opportunity and called for direct enquiry; straightaway dismissal on the premise that the employee neither appeared for enquiry nor offered explanation is impermissible in law. Removing a person from service 'virtually amounts to a capital punishment' and such an order must refer to antecedent events, materials on record and reasons; the order dated 24.06.2013 being cryptic and referring to no adverse material, the first and second appellate authorities ought to have considered this aspect. No ground for interference with the learned Single Judge's order; writ appeal dismissed, no costs; connected C.M.P.(MD)No.3618 of 2023 closed.

W.A.(MD)No.336 of 2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 16.06.2025

CORAM

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

W.A.(MD)No.336 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD)No.3618 of 2023

1.The President, Naduvakurichi Minor Panchayat, Melaneelithanallur Panchayat Union, Sankarankoil Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

2.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayats), Melaneelithanallur Panchayat Union, Melaneelithanallur, Sankarankoil Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

3.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District at The Collector Office, Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli.

... Appellants

Vs.

B.Muthu ... Respondent

1/10

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

W.A.(MD)No.336 of 2023

Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.14347 of 2014 dated 26.04.2022 on the file of this Court.

For Appellants : Mr.A.Kannan, Addl. Government Pleader.

For Respondent : Mr.S.Selvakumar

JUDGMENT (By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

Heard both sides.

2.The President of the local body is on appeal challenging the order dated 26.04.2022 made in W.P.(MD)No.14347 of 2014 filed by the first respondent herein.

3.The first respondent herein was appointed as Panchayat Assistant

in the year 1996 in Naduvakurichi Minor Panchayat. He was removed from service vide communication dated 24.06.2013 by the local body. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner filed an appeal before the District Collector, Tirunelveli. The District Collector dismissed the 2/10

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

W.A.(MD)No.336 of 2023

appeal vide order dated 10.06.2014. Challenging the proceedings of the second respondent and the order of the appellate authority, the writ petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.14347 of 2014. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition in the following terms:

“9. The contention of the petitioner is that the show cause notice was issued alleging certain irregularities, for which enquiry was conducted. In the appellate order, the appellate authority has introduced entirely a new case, which was not shown in the show cause notice at all. The petitioner has submitted that there is deviation from the original allegations shown in the show cause notice and prayed to allow the writ petition.

10. The next contention putforth by the petitioner is that the first respondent with the intention to appoint his own person has initiated the proceedings, also has suppressed the explanation and the reply submitted by the petitioner. Moreover, the first respondent was present in the enquiry and intimidated the enquiry officer, hence contended the enquiry officer has conducted the enquiry with bias. Therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated with bias and also there is violative of principles of natural justice.

11. The respondents have directed the Deputy Block Development Officer, Melaneeithanallur to investigate without any

3/10

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

W.A.(MD)No.336 of 2023

authority and the same is vitiated since the same was investigated behind the back of the petitioner. If there is any adverse report submitted against the petitioner, the respondents ought to have directed the petitioner to submit explanation for the alleged adverse report. The respondents have not called for any explanation from the petitioner and the investigation was done behind the back of the petitioner. This Court is of the considered opinion that if any report is relied on by the respondents, then the petitioner is entitled to get a copy of the same. Since in the present case the respondents failed to serve a copy of the report, therefore the order of termination is liable to be set aside.

12. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has misappropriated the amount, but the explanation given by the petitioner is that he has already deposited the amount to the first respondent. The first respondent has not denied such allegations in the counter submitted before this Court. Therefore, this Court left with no option, is of the considered opinion that the allegation of misappropriation is not proved.

13. For the observations stated supra, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order of termination and modify the punishment. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the punishment of termination is modified as stoppage of increments for a period of 3 years without cumulative effect. The petitioner was dismissed from his service from 24.06.2013, which was confirmed by the District Collector on 10.06.2014. The petitioner

4/10

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

W.A.(MD)No.336 of 2023

was not in service from the order of the termination i.e. from 24.06.2013. Hence, this Court directs the respondents to reinstate the petitioner. As far as the backwages are concerned generally this Court denies backwages on the principle of “No work No pay”. Since this Court has set aside the order of termination and based on the nature of the case this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to 50% of backwages. The respondents are directed to pay 50% of backwages within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.”

Questioning the same, the local body has filed this writ appeal.

4.The learned Additional Government Pleader reiterated all the contentions set out in the grounds of appeal and called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order and allow this writ appeal.

5.Per contra, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that interference with the order of the learned Single Judge is not warranted.

6.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. During the relevant time, the first respondent

5/10

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

W.A.(MD)No.336 of 2023

herein was working as Panchayat Secretary. His service conditions were

therefore governed by G.O.(Ms)No.175, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 05.12.2006. Clause 5 of the said government order reads as follows:

“fpuhk Cuhl;rpapd; eph;thfj;jpy;> Cuhl;rp cjtpahsh ; Jiwapd; tpjpKiwfis kPwy;> xOq;fPdk;> ftdf; FiwT jFjpapd;ik> flik jtWjy;> jtwhd eltbf;iffs ; Nghd;wtw;wpy; <Lgl;lhy; me;j Cuhl;rp cjtpahsiu fz;lzk;> mguhjk;> Cjpa cah;T my;yJ gzp cah;it epWj;jp itj;jy; my;yJ %g;Gg; gl;baypy; juk; ,wf;Fjy;> my;yJ fPo;epiyg; gzpaplj;jpy; itj;jy; my;yJ fhyKiw Cjpaj;jpy; fPo;epiyapy; itj;jy;> jw;fhypf gzpePf;fk ; nra;jy;> gzpapypUe;J ePf;Fjy; my;yJ gzptpyf;fk ; nra;ayhk;. ,Ug;gpDk; mjw;F Kd;ghf me;j Cuhl;rp cjtpahsiu Neub tpruhizf;F miog;gJ cl;gl mth ; jdJ tpsf;fj;ij mspf;f mtUf;F Nghjpa tha;g;G mspf;fg;gl;bUf;f Ntz;Lk;.”

A mere reading of the aforesaid clause would show that before passing an order of dismissal, the Panchayat Secretary must be given due opportunity and also be called for direct enquiry. We had look at the communication dated 24.06.2013 issued by the appellant. It merely states that even though the writ petitioner was called for enquiry on

6/10

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

W.A.(MD)No.336 of 2023

10.06.2013, since he did not appear for enquiry and offer his explanation, he has been straightaway dismissed from service. Such an approach is impermissible in law. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would state that the writ petitioner did appear for enquiry on 10.06.2013. But the President of the local body chose to terminate his service as if he did not appear at all and also he had not submitted any explanation.

7.Removing a person from service virtually amounts to a capital punishment. Therefore, such an order must refer to antecedent events, the materials on record and the reason as to why, the employer proposed to dismiss the employee. The order dated 24.06.2013 is cryptic. It does not refer to any adverse materials against the writ petitioner at all. Subsequently, the Block Development Officer, Melaneelithanallur passed final order dated 07.02.2014 dismissing the appeal. Challenging the same, the writ petitioner filed second appeal before the District Collector. The District Collector also dismissed the appeal vide proceedings dated 10.06.2014. Challenging the same, the above mentioned writ petition came to be filed.

7/10

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

W.A.(MD)No.336 of 2023

8.The order passed by the original authority is cryptic. This aspect of the matter ought to have been considered by the first and second appellate authority. We are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge does not warrant interference and the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(G.R.S. J.,) & (K.R.S. J.,) 16.06.2025

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias

To:

1.The President, Naduvakurichi Minor Panchayat, Melaneelithanallur Panchayat Union, Sankarankoil Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

2.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayats), Melaneelithanallur Panchayat Union, Melaneelithanallur, Sankarankoil Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

8/10

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

W.A.(MD)No.336 of 2023

3.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District at The Collector Office, Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli.

9/10

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

W.A.(MD)No.336 of 2023

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. and K.RAJASEKAR, J.

ias

W.A.(MD)No.336 of 2023

16.06.2025

10/10

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