Allowed

V.Karl Marx, Fireman No. 6508, v. the District Officer

Madras HC26 Nov 2020WP(MD)/6797/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged a recovery order imposed on his pay without a prior show cause notice. The court quashed the order for violating principles of natural justice and directed the respondent to issue a show cause notice and provide an opportunity before deciding the case on merits. The writ petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; respondent directed to issue show cause notice within four weeks; petitioner directed to submit explanations within two weeks thereafter.

V.Karl Marx, Fireman No. 6508, Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.6797 of 2015

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.11.2020 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

V.Karl Marx

... Petitioner

-Vs-

The District Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondent

¶8

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of recovery in Pa.Aa.No.66/2015, Na.Ka.No.13817/Aa/2013-3, dated 16.03.2015, signed on 06.04.2015 on the file of the respondent and quash the same as illegal.

¶9

For Respondent : Mr.CM.Mari Chelliah Prabhu Additional Government Pleader ORDER

¶10

The impugned order of recovery, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶11

2.The writ petitioner is working in the Fire and Rescue Services Department. He is a Fireman and his pay was fixed in accordance with the Government orders and Pay Rules in force. The impugned order dated, 16.03.2015 was issued surprisingly, stating that the pay fixation done by the establishment was erroneaous. Consequently, the recovery is also imposed.

¶12

3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner made a submission that the reduction of pay and recovery was imposed without issuing any show cause notice and opportunity to the writ petitioner. Thus, the impugned orders are in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶13

4.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent is unable to establish that the show https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

1/2

¶15

W.P.(MD).No.6797 of 2015

¶16

cause notice or an opportunity was given to the petitioner, enabling him to defend the case.

¶17

5.In this view of the matter, the following orders are passed:-

¶18

(i)The impugned order passed by the respondent in proceedings No.Pa.Aa.No.66/2015, Na.Ka.No.13817/Aa/2013-3, dated 16.03.2015, signed on 06.04.2015, is quashed;

¶19

(ii)The respondent is directed to issue show cause notice to the writ petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner is directed to submit his explanations/documents, within a period of two weeks thereafter;

¶20

(iii)On receipt of the explanation, the respondent shall consider the case on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and by providing an opportunity to the writ petitioner.

¶21

6.With these directions, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

// True Copy //

sji

The District Officer,

¶26

Fire and Rescue Services, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶27

+1 CC to SGP ( SR-23151[F] dated 27/11/2020 )

¶28

+1 CC to Mr.T. LAJAPATHI ROY, Advocate ( SR-23048[F] dated 27/11/2020 )

¶29

W.P.(MD).No.6797 of 2015 26.11.2020

¶30

SJ(CO)

¶31

KM (07.12.2020) 2P 4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶32

2/2

V.Karl Marx, Fireman No. 6508, v. the District Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Karl Marx, Fireman No. 6508, v. the District Officer

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

M.Innas, Head Constable 730/KK Vs the Govt. of Tamil Nadu

R.Chellaiah, Vs Rural Development Dept. of

S.R. Krishnakumar, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

S.Dhuraisamy, Vs the Director of Town

The Tamilnadu Government Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

M.Vallimayil Vs the District Collector