Mohankumar v. The District Collector Cum

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.09.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015 Mohankumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayat, 2.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Collectorate, 3.The Assistant Director of Rural Development (Panchayats), 4.The Block Development Officer, Thanthoni Panchayat Union, 5.Mariammal Ravisundaram The President, Emoor Panchayat Board, Emoor, 1/4

Karur Taluk, 6.Ravisundaram ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned enquiry report dated 14.10.2014 conducted by the 4th respondent and quash the same as illegal, and direct the respondents 1 to 4 to conduct fresh enquiry based on the petitioners representation dated 25.3.2014 by giving opportunities to the petitioner and take action as per law against respondents 5 and 6.

For Petitioner : Mr.AN.Ramanathan For Respondents : Mr.M.Siddharthan Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R4 : Mr.S.Rajasekar for R6 : Mr.M.Rajarajan for R5

ORDER

Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner is a resident of Emoor Panchayat. He made some allegations against the panchayat president. They were enquired into. The enquiry report went against the petitioner. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.

2/4

3. After hearing both sides, I am more than satisfied that case for interference has not been made out. The first allegation made by the petitioner is that a boy aged 15 years was appointed as Overhead Tank Operator. The appointment was made in the year 1999. The 5th respondent became president of the panchayat only in the year 2006. The 5th respondent was not responsible for the appointment of the minor boy. The second allegation is that the husband of the panchayat president had signed in some of the cheques and vouchers. As regards signatures, it is only the concerned person who can dispute. Therefore, both the grounds are not made out.

4. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

25.09.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi To 1.The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayat, G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

3/4

rmi 2.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Collectorate, 3.The Assistant Director of Rural Development (Panchayats), 4.The Block Development Officer, Thanthoni Panchayat Union, 25.09.2023 4/4