Case Note & Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the District Collector to remove the President of Kandadevi Village Panchayat under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. The petition was founded on allegations that the fourth respondent President had committed serious irregularities in the implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGA), including illegally appointing his own family members. The petitioner contended that several complaints led to an enquiry by the Chief Engineer of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, whose report dated 15.12.2022 was submitted to the Chief Secretary. Despite the report, no action was taken against the President. Subsequently, the Assistant Project Officer (second respondent) conducted a detailed enquiry and in his report dated 19.06.2023 concluded that the Panchayat Secretary, not the President, was responsible for the allotment of work and disbursement of funds under the scheme. The report recommended disciplinary action against the Panchayat Secretary. Based on this, the Chief Secretary by communication dated 06.02.2023 directed the first respondent to initiate disciplinary proceedings, and on 10.04.2023 three charges were framed against the Panchayat Secretary. The proceedings were pending at the time of hearing. The petitioner, however, persisted in seeking removal of the President, claiming the report implicated him. The fourth respondent’s counsel argued that the enquiry exonerated the President and squarely blamed the Secretary. The Government Advocate confirmed that disciplinary action had been initiated against the Secretary as recommended. The court observed that the enquiry report did not attribute any irregularity to the President; it clearly held the Panchayat Secretary accountable. Since appropriate administrative action had already been taken against the Secretary, the court found no merit in the petitioner’s claim that the President should be removed based on that report. The court declined to exercise its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, holding that no case was made out for issuing the direction sought. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Discretionary Power under Article 226 - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The petitioner sought a Mandamus to remove the Village Panchayat President based on alleged irregularities in MGNREGA scheme implementation - The official enquiry report found the Panchayat Secretary responsible and recommended disciplinary action against him, which had already been initiated - Held that no grounds exist to invoke the extraordinary discretionary powers of the court under Article 226 (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a direction under Article 226 should be issued to remove a Village Panchayat President under Section 205 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 based on an enquiry report that exonerated the President and blamed the Panchayat Secretary.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed; court found no merit to invoke extraordinary discretionary powers under Article 226 as the enquiry report exonerated the President and recommended action against the Panchayat Secretary, which had already been taken.
Law Points
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Section 205 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act
- 1994
- Writ of Mandamus not issued when alternative remedy exists
- Discretionary power under Article 226 exercised sparingly
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (02) 97
MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Mr.K.P.S.Palanivelrajan, Mr.S.Paul Murugesh, Mr.D.S.Neduncheliyan, Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar
The District Collector, Sivagangai District; The Assistant Project Officer, Sivagangai; The Block Development Officer, Devakottai; The President, Kandadevi Village Panchayat
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus to remove Village Panchayat President
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a direction to the first respondent to remove the fourth respondent, the Village Panchayat President, under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994
Filing Reason
Alleged huge irregularities by the fourth respondent in implementation of MGNREGA scheme, including appointing his own family members, and failure of authorities to act on enquiry report
Previous Decisions
Second respondent's enquiry report dated 19.06.2023 concluded that the Panchayat Secretary was responsible; disciplinary action initiated against Panchayat Secretary on 10.04.2023
Issues
Whether the court should exercise its extraordinary discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a writ of mandamus directing the removal of a Village Panchayat President when the official enquiry report found the Panchayat Secretary responsible and disciplinary action had already been initiated against him.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the fourth respondent President had committed massive irregularities in MGNREGA works and appointed his own family members, and despite the Chief Engineer's report and the second respondent's enquiry report, the authorities failed to remove him, necessitating the writ.
Fourth respondent's counsel contended that the second respondent's report clearly held the Panchayat Secretary, not the President, responsible for work allotment and fund disbursement, and recommended disciplinary action against the Secretary, so no case was made out against the President.
Government Advocate for official respondents stated that pursuant to instructions, disciplinary action had already been initiated against the Panchayat Secretary on 10.04.2023 framing three charges, and the proceedings were pending.
Ratio Decidendi
Where an official enquiry report into irregularities in a government scheme finds the Panchayat Secretary, and not the Village Panchayat President, responsible, and disciplinary proceedings have been duly initiated against the Secretary, no grounds exist for the High Court to exercise its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct removal of the President under Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.
Judgment Excerpts
the second respondent has concluded that only the Secretary to the Panchayat concerned is responsible for allotment of work and disbursement of funds under the aforesaid scheme and in view of the same, it has been recommended to take appropriate disciplinary action against the Panchayat Secretary.
disciplinary action has already been initiated as against the Panchayat Secretary to Kandadevi Village Panchayat framing three charges as against him on 10.04.2023 and the same is pending.
This Court do not find any merit on the adverse claim seeking a direction to invoke the extraordinary discretionary powers of this Court
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking removal of the fourth respondent President under Section 205 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act based on second respondent's report dated 19.06.2023. The matter was heard and reserved on 17.12.2024, and pronounced on 12.02.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994: Section 205
- Constitution of India: Article 226
