Disposed

M.Veerappan v. the Director of Town

Madras HC2 Jan 2017WP/6341/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging service suspension and retirement denial due to audit paras, the Supreme Court of India granted liberty to the petitioner to make a representation for retirement benefits within two weeks of receiving the order, allowing the respondent to adjudicate after verification of charge settlements.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to make a representation for retirement benefits within two weeks for adjudication within eight weeks.

M.Veerappan Vs the Director of Town — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 02.01.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

M.Veerappan

¶6

The Director of Town Panchayats, Kuralagam,

¶7

Chennai – 600 108.

¶8

.. Respondent

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent relating o the impugned proceedings issued in (1) Charge Memo in ROC No.1686/2011/A1, dated 28.1.2011 and (2) the consequential suspension order in Roc.No.1686/2011-I/1A dt. 28.1.2011 and (3) the consequential order not allowing the petitioner to retire from service in Roc.No.1686/2011-2/A1 dt. 28.1.2011 and to direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to retire from service on the date of retirement i.e. on 31.1.2011 with all consequential benefits including the disbursement of retirement benefits with interest.

¶10

For petitioner : Mr.G.Sankaran

¶11

For respondents : Mr.S.Navaneetham

¶12

Additional Government Pleader

¶13

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Charge Memo dated 28.1.2011, the consequential suspension order dated 28.1.2011, the consequential order not allowing the petitioner to retire from service and also for a direction to direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to retire from service on the date of retirement i.e., on 31.1.2011 with all consequential benefits including the disbursement of retirement benefits.

¶14

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

¶15

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while the petitioner was working as Executive Officer of Udangudi Town Panchayat, he is alleged to have committed certain irregularities in laying Cement Concrete Road and as such, charges were framed against him by the Government. As the charges pertains to lack of supervisory nature and certain technical parameters in execution of road works, for which, he may be not be made responsible. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that most of the audit paras based on which charges were framed have been dropped/settled and that charges were framed with ulterior motive to harass the petitioner. The few pending paras have also been settled during the pendency of the Writ Petition. The details of charge count and the settlement of dues are given below.

¶16

Sl. Audit Year Details of Typed Set of
No. Paras dropping/deletion of Papers Page
audit paras No.
1 Para 30 2002-03 For 30(1) has been Page Nos.36
(1,3) recovered. In respect & 37 of
of Para 30(3), Additional
SPC.No.92/2004 is pending Typed Set of
before the District Papers
Munsif Court, Alangudi in
Pudukottai District and
appropriate action has
been taken
2 Para 35 2002-03 In this regard para is Page No.22
pending but, however, the of
petitioner has been Additional
released from typed set of
responsibility as per the papers
proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.1735/2001 dated
02.09.2011.
3 Para 37 2002-03 The audit para has been Page No.22
(4) settled by the Assistant of
Director as well as Additional
District Collector as per Typed Set of
proceedings dated Papers
2.9.2011.
4 Para 52 2002-03 The charge has been Page No.22
subsequently dropped as of
per proceedings of Additional
District Collector dated Typed Set of
02.9.2011 Papers

¶17

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

¶18

5	Para 42 2003-04	The audit para is still pending but, however, the response of the petitioner has been ruled out.	Page No.22 of Additional Typed Set of Papers
6	Para 43 2003-04	The audit para is still pending; it relates to the BSNL not making payment of rent of Rs.5,00/-. Whereas action being taken by EO Town Panchyat Karambaikudi.
7	Para 47 2003-04	The related to time bar arrears of tax and the petitioner's responsibility has been removed.	Page 22 of additional typed set of papers
8	Para 12 2007-08	The para has been settled even prior to framing of charge memo as per the proceedings of Assistant Director, Local Fund Audit, Dindigul, dated 25.8.2010	Page 19 of original Typed set of papers
9	Para 13 2008-09	The audit para has been settled as per the	Page 20 of original
		proceedings of Local Fund Audit, dated 26.10.2010.	Typed set of papers
10	Para 42 2008-09	The para settled as per the Local Fund Audit dated 27.07.2010	Page 18 of original Typed set of papers
11	Para 44 2008-09	The para settled as per the Local Fund Audit dated 27.07.2010.	Page 18 of original Typed set of papers
12.	Para 45 2008-09	The para settled as per the Local Fund Audit dated 27.07.2010.	Page 18 of original Typed set of papers

¶19

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

¶20

The para has	been sett	led	Page	20	of
by the proce	edings of	AD,	origi	nal
LF Dindigul	as well	as	Typed	set	of
Regional Dep	uty Direct	or,	paper	s	as
LF, Madurai,	as per	the	well	as P	age
proceedings,	da	ted	21		of
26.10.2010		and	addit	iona	l
20.01.2011, r	espective	ly.	Typed Paper	Set s	of

¶21

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the fact that audit paras have been settled, there is no basis for the respondent to proceed on the charge memo and therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled for all the relief stated in the prayer of the Writ Petition. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the attention of this Court that the case in STC No.92 of 2004 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Alangudi, was also disposed of in favour of the petitioner. As such, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the petitioner has been exonerated of almost all the charges, he shall be permitted to retire from the service and avail all consequential benefits.

¶22

On the other hand, learned Additional Government Pleader assailed the contention of the petitioner by filing counter affidavit. Though the petitioner has given a statement that almost all the audit paras have been settled, the learned Additional Government Pleader contended that since a duty casts on the petitioner to collect the dues which were due to the Town Panchayat and the laxity on the part of the petitioner has resulted in causing loss to the Town Panchayat funds. During the tenure of the petitioner as Executive Officer in Karambakudi and Oddanchatram Town Panchayat, a loss of Rs.38.75 lakhs has been caused to the Town Panchayat. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefits as sought for by him and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

Considering the facts and submissions made by both the parties, this Court is of the view that if the petitioner as contended by him has been exonerated of the charges by the respondent, he may be given liberty to make a representation to the respondent seeking for those reliefs. Accordingly, liberty is granted to the petitioner to make a representation for all those benefits sought herein before the respondent by placing relevant materials in support of his contention of exoneration of charges or settlement/drop of charges, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, the respondent

¶24

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

¶25

shall consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within a period of 8 weeks thereafter, on merits and in accordance with law.

¶26

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

¶27

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
asvm
To
The Director of Town Panchayats,
Kuralagam,
Chennai – 600 108.
+1 cc to Mr.G.Sankaran Advocate sr 346
+1 cc to Government Pleader High Court Madras
sr 775
W.P.No.6341 of 2011
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011
pk(co)
aa0802/2017

¶28

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

M.Veerappan v. the Director of Town

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Veerappan v. the Director of Town

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sennappan Vs The Tasildhar

M/S. Nikita Traders, Vs the Commissioner of Customs

Mrs.Clara Vs Director General of Police

Amit Kumar Agarwal Vs District Revenue Officer

Chattramal Baid Vs District Revenue Officer

Dr.S.Karthikeyan Vs the Principal Secretary to