M.Muthukumar Vs Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Ombudsman

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to take action on the communication of the 1st respondent in letter No.231/ Na/ 2023 dated 29.03.2023.

¶14

__________ Page1 of 7

¶15

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

¶16

WP No. 30421 of 2024

¶17

For Petitioner(s): Ms. L.P.Maurya

¶18

For Respondent(s): Mr. L. Gokulraj, Government Advocate for R2

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This writ petition has been filed seeking a mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to take action pursuant to the communication of the 1^st respondent in letter No.231/ Na/ 2023 dated 29.03.2023.

¶21

The petitioner would submit that he was appointed as Municipal Commissioner (Grade II) on 09.03.2020 and was later transferred to Kulithalai Municipality and thereafter to Kangeyam Municipality. During the review meeting held on 01.09.2021, the Director of Municipal Administration instructed all Municipal Commissioners to verify the appointments of Domestic Breed Checker (DBC) workers, as complaints had been received regarding illegal appointments. On verification, the petitioner found that 40 DBC workers had been appointed without following the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998. Consequently, the petitioner directed the Sanitary Inspector, Selvaraj on 02.09.2021 to inform the 40 DBC workers not to report to duty. He issued a show cause notice dated 22.10.2021 to the Sanitary

¶22

Page2 of 7

¶23

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

¶24

WP No. 30421 of 2024

¶25

Inspector seeking an explanation regarding the illegal appointment of DBC workers. Since no explanation was not submitted, he issued a Charge Memo dated 19.11.2021 to the Sanitary Inspector Subsequently, one DBC worker

¶26

made allegations against the petitioner alleging sexual harassment. However, the criminal proceedings arising out of the complaint were quashed by this Court in Crime Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of 2022, holding that the complaint was false and an abuse of the process of law. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representations dated 15.02.2023 and 08.02.2023 seeking action against the officers responsible for the illegal appointments. The 1^st respondent, by communication dated 29.03.2023, forwarded the matter to the 2^nd respondent for necessary action. The petitioner also sought information under the RTI Act and lodged a complaint before the Director of Local Fund Audit. Based on the complaint, an enquiry was conducted and one Chandrasekaran, the Assistant Director of Local Fund Audit was suspended vide proceedings dated 25.07.2024. Since no action was taken by the 2^nd respondent on the recommendation dated 29.03.2023, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the aforesaid relief.

¶27

Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶28

Page3 of 7

¶29

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

¶30

WP No. 30421 of 2024

¶31

The 1^st respondent had issued a communication dated 29.03.2023 to the 2^nd respondent wherein it has been stated as follows:

¶32

g[fhh;fis Fwpj;J efuhl;rp eph;thf kz;ly ,af;Feh; jiyikapy ; xU FG mikj;J. mf;FGthdJ fh';nfak; efuhl;rpapy ; Ma;t [ bra;J. Xg;ge;j J}a;ikg ; gzpahsh;fs;

¶33

bfhR xHpg;g [ gzpahsh;fs ; epakdj;jpy ; KiwnfL

¶34

eilbgw;Ws;sjhf cWjp bra;ag;gl;lhy ; rk;ke;jg;gl;l

¶35

fh';nfak; efuhl;rpfs; mYtyh;fs; (Rfhjhu Ma;ths; cl;gl)

¶36

kPJ chpa tpjpfspd; fPH; xG';F eltof;if nkw;bfhs;SkhW

¶37

efuhl;rp eph;thf ,af;Feh; mwpt[Wj;jg;gLfpwhh;/”

¶38

__________ Page4 of 7

¶39

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

¶40

WP No. 30421 of 2024

¶41

Pursuant to the direction issued by the petitioner to the illegally appointed DBC workers not to report for duty, a false complaint alleging sexual harassment was filed against him, which was ultimately quashed by orders of this Court dated 21.02.2024 in Crl.O.P.Nos.9735, 9736 and 9737 of 2022 wherein this Court had clearly observed that the complaint itself was filed to wreck vengeance and was a clear case of abuse of the process of law. However, despite this, the respondents have not taken any steps whatsoever to implement the order passed by the 1^st respondent. Therefore, the 2^nd respondent is directed to implement the communication issued by the 1^st respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which this Court will initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against the 2nd respondent.

¶42