Allowed¶54

P.Pappathi v. The District Collector

Madras HC1 Dec 2025WP/3970/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Termination of village panchayat Sweepers; quashing of BDO order dated 31.01.2022 (Na.Ka.No.A1/0533/2022); violation of principles of natural justice - no notice, no charge memo, no enquiry, no opportunity to explain; arbitrariness; writ of certiorari under Article 226; Ka.Mamanandal Panchayat, Kallakurichi/Villupuram; consolidated pay Rs.2,600/- per month; Panchayat President's letter of 27.01.2022; Madras High Court, P.T. Asha J.; writ petition allowed, order quashed, no costs, miscellaneous petition closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order of the second respondent dated 31.01.2022 in Na.Ka.No.A1/0533/2022 quashed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.No.4117 of 2022) closed. ¶54

P.Pappathi Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned order of the second respondent dated 31.01.2022 in Na.Ka.No.A1/0533/2022 quashed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.No.4117 of 2022) closed.

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned termination order dated 31.01.2022 passed by the second respondent without issuing notice to the petitioners or affording them an opportunity to submit their explanations/objections, in violation of the principles of natural justice, is sustainable.

¶47

Court's answer

A mere perusal of the impugned order shows the second respondent simply followed the lines given in the letter addressed by the 3rd respondent Panchayat; no notice was issued to the petitioners nor were they given an opportunity to submit their explanations/objections, and the impugned order was passed totally flouting the principles of natural justice.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

Affording an opportunity to the persons charged to put forth their case is a cornerstone of justice, which was not adhered to in the instant case.

¶49

Key takeaways

The impugned order is arbitrary and cannot be sustained.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Ms. Justice P.T. Asha) allowed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking certiorari and quashed the order dated 31.01.2022 in Na.Ka.No.A1/0533/2022 passed by the Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Kallakurichi Panchayat Union, terminating the services of two Sweepers (P.Pappathi and M.Irusayee) appointed in October 2019 in Ka.Mamanandal Panchayat on a consolidated pay of Rs.2,600/- per month. Acting on a letter dated 27.01.2022 from the Panchayat President seeking replacement of the petitioners with his preferred candidates, the second respondent terminated them without any charge memo, notice or enquiry and without affording an opportunity to submit explanations or objections. Holding that the order was passed totally flouting the principles of natural justice - affording such opportunity being a cornerstone of justice - the Court held the impugned order arbitrary and unsustainable, quashed it, awarded no costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.

¶1

W.P.No.3970 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 01.12.2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶5

W.P.No.3970 of 2022

¶6

and

¶7

W.M.P.No.4117 of 202 2

¶8

P.Pappathi

¶9

M.Irusayee ... Petitioners

¶10

¶11

The District Collector, Kallakurichi District, Kallakurichi.

¶12

The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Kallakurichi Panchayat Union, Villupuram District.

¶13

Ka.Mamanandal Panchayat, Rep.by its President, Ka.Mamanandal, Villupuram District. ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking nd to issue Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the 2

¶15

1/8

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.3970 of 2022 respondent dated 31.01.2022 in Na.Ka.No.A1/0533/2022 and quash the same.

¶18

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Selvaraj

¶19

For Respondents : Ms.S.Anitha Special Government Pleader for R1 and R2

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The above writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated

¶22

31.01.2022 passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.A1/0533/2022.

¶23

The short facts which have given rise to the filing of the writ petition

¶24

are herein below set out :

¶25

(a)The petitioners were appointed as Sweepers in the 3rd respondentPanchayat, during October 2019 on a consolidated pay of Rs.2,600/- per month. They have been discharging the duties to the satisfaction of their

¶26

superiors. That being the case, the President of the 3rd respondent-Panchayat,

¶27

in order to accommodate the persons of his choice namely one Sangeetha and

¶28

2/8

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.3970 of 2022 Periyayee, was determined to terminate the service of the petitioners.

¶31

(b)The petitioner would submit that they worked continuously for a period of

¶32

three years in the 3rd respondent-Panchayat and there has been no complaint

¶33

with reference to the work executed by them. Their families are also totally

¶34

dependant on the meagre pay that is being earned by the petitioners.

¶35

(c)It appears that the President of 3rd respondent–Panchayat has sent a letter to the second respondent on 27.01.2022, directing the second respondent to terminate the services of the petitioners and to appoint the said Sangeetha and Periyayee in their place, stating that the petitioners are unable to discharge the duties owing to their age. This absolutely is false, inasmuch as the petitioners are aged 46 years and 50 years respectively and by no stretch of imagination can they be called old.

¶36

(d)On the basis of this letter, the second respondent directed the Deputy Block Development Officer to inspect the office of the 3rd respondent and submit his report. It appears that the 3rd respondent has influenced the second respondent as well as the Deputy Block Development Officer to give a report

¶37

against the petitioners. 3/8

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.3970 of 2022 (e)Thereafter, without any charge memo, notice and enquiry, the petitioners

¶40

have been terminated by virtue of impugned order.

¶41

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court in the present writ petition.

¶42

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the

¶43

learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

¶44

A mere perusal of the impugned order would clearly show that the

¶45

second respondent has simply followed the lines given in the letter addressed

¶46

by the 3rd respondent Panchayat to terminate the services of petitioners. The

¶47

impugned order would further reveal that no notice has been issued to the petitioners nor they have been given an opportunity to submit their explanations / objections to the letter issued by the third respondent, and by

¶48

totally flouting the principles of natural justice, the impugned order has been passed. Affording an opportunity to the persons charged, to putforth their case

¶49

is a cornerstone of justice, which is not adhered to in the instant case. 4/8

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.No.3970 of 2022 Therefore, the impugned order is arbitrary and cannot be sustained.

¶52