Partly allowed

P.Chinnasamy v. the Conservator of Forests

Madras HC27 Nov 2014WP/17404/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order recovering funds from a government employee because it was based on a report furnished to the authorities but not disclosed to the employee before the adverse order was passed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order directing recovery of Rs. 2,31,103/- is quashed and the matter is remanded to the first respondent to pass orders afresh after furnishing the report to the petitioner.

P.Chinnasamy Vs the Conservator of Forests — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 27.11.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

¶5

W.P.NO.17404 OF 2007 (O.A.NO.2271 OF 2004)

¶6

P.Chinnasamy ..Petitioner/Applicant

¶7

Versus
1. The Conservator of Forests
Thiruchirapalli Circle,
Tiruchirapalli.

¶8

The Divisional Forest Officer
Social Forestry Division
Tiruchirapalli. .. Respondents/Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.2271 of 2004 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to call for the records of the first respondent relating to the order in Pro.No.Pa.2/2143/2004 dated 30.04.2004, quash the same and issue consequential directions to refund to the petitioner amounts recovered, if any, from the petitioner.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravi For Respondents : Mr.N.Inbanathan Government Advocate

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

Heard both sides. I am not going into the details of the merits of the case in view of the order that is followed hereunder.

¶13

2.The impugned order dated 30.04.2004 of the first respondent for recovery of Rs.2,31,103/- is based on the report dated 12.02.2004 of the second respondent.

¶14

3.The second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 14.05.2002 under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, for which, the petitioner made a detailed representation. The first respondent forwarded the same to

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

the second respondent and obtained a report dated 12.02.2004, based on which, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 30.04.2004.

¶17

4.The petitioner has questioned the impugned order. The paras 6(d) and 6(e) of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition are as follows:

¶18

“(d) Thereupon the second Respondent seems to have sent a report dated 12.2.2004 to the Conservator of Forests, Thiruchirapalli Circle, stating that the explanations submitted by the Applicant are not acceptable and that the loss sustained by the government as reported by the Monitoring Committee is liable to be recovered.

¶19

(e) A copy of the said report was not furnished to the petitioner and the First Respondent relying the said report dated 12/2/2004 of the second Respondent has passed final orders in his Pro.No.Pa.2-2143-2004 dated 30.4.2004 directing recovery of a sum of Rs.2,31,103/- from the pay of the Applicant in 36 months instalments (first instalment Rs.3603/- and 35 instalments at Rs.6500/each).”

¶20

5.The aforesaid averments are met in para 5 of the reply affidavit that there is no necessity to mark a copy of the above report dated 12.02.2004 sent by the second respondent to the petitioner. In this regard, para 5 of the reply affidavit is extracted hereunder:

¶21

“5.Regarding Para 6(e) of the application, it is submitted that the applicant has contended that the report dated 12.2.2004 sent by the second respondent to the first respondent was not issued to him. In this connection, it is submitted that there is no necessity to mark the copy of the above report to the applicant.”

¶22

6.It is well settled that even in the case of administrative action, if an adverse order is passed based on some material, the same shall be furnished and the views thereon shall be obtained before passing such adverse order. Reference may be had to the paragraph 47 of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another V. Sh.Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, wherein, it was held that the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially and has formulated certain principles in paragraph 47 of its judgment, which are extracted hereunder :

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

“47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:

¶25

a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. ......”

¶26

Thus, the impugned order of the first respondent is in violation of and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Kranti case reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496.

¶27

7.In view of the same, I am inclined to quash the impugned order and accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent to pass orders afresh, after furnishing a copy of the report dated 12.02.2004 to the petitioner and after giving opportunity to the petitioner to give his remarks thereon.

¶28

8.The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No
costs.
TK
-s/d-
Deputy Registrar(G)
Dt:24/12/2014
True Copy
Sub-Assitant Registrar
To
1. The Conservator of Forests
Thiruchirapalli Circle,
Tiruchirapalli.
2. The Divisional Forest Officer
Social Forestry Division
Tiruchirapalli.
+ 1 cc to Mr.M.Ravi, Advocate SR 57419
+ 1 cc to the Spl Govt. Pleader (Forest) High Court,Chennai SR 57306
jsu(co)
prk30/12
W.P.NO.17404 OF 2007
(O.A.NO.2271 OF 2004)

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

P.Chinnasamy v. the Conservator of Forests

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Chinnasamy v. the Conservator of Forests

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Rengasamy Vs the Special Secretary to

S.Chandraprakasam Vs the District Collector

S.Jayakumar Vs the Govt of Tamil Nadu

M. Selvam Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by

P. Sivakumar Vs the Director Generl of

A.Palanisamy Vs the Assistant Director