Quashed

M.Selvam, v. The Assistant Director

Madras HC11 Mar 2022WP/4982/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, treating the absence of a show cause notice as an incurable flaw, quashed an order for salary recovery of Rs. 63,704. The Court directed the authorities to issue a show cause notice with calculations, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order in compliance with G.O. Ms. No. 286.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; authorities directed to issue show cause notice, afford hearing, and pass reasoned order; refund if no proceedings by deadline.

M.Selvam, Vs The Assistant Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.03.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU

¶5

W.P. No. 4982 of 2017 and W.M.P. Nos. 5223, 5224 and 24870 of 2017

¶6

M. Selvam ... Petitioner

¶7

-vs-

¶8

The Assistant Director, Sericulture Department, Pennagaram, Dharmapuri District.

¶9

The Director of Sericulture, Sericulture Department, Anaimedu, Salem-1. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the First Respondent in Sa.Mu.3018/A/2013, dated 19.08.2013 and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. Mukund R.Pandiyan

¶12

For Respondents: Mrs. C. Sangamithirai Special Government Pleader

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Heard Mr. Mukund R.Pandiyan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mrs. C.Sangamithirai, Learned Counsel for the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶15

The Writ Petition challenges the Proceedings No. 3018/A/2013 dated 19.08.2013 passed by the First Respondent in which the Petitioner has been informed that the sum of Rs. 63,704/excessively paid to him would be recovered from his salary in installments.

¶16

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

¶17

This Court at the time of admission on 28.02.2017 had granted an order of ad-interim stay of the impugned order.

¶18

It is trite law that any administrative action which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice, meaning thereby that the person concerned must be informed of the case with supporting evidence against him and he must be given a fair opportunity to meet the case before an adverse decision is taken. The Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O. Ms. No. 286, Finance (Pension) Department dated 28.08.2018 after referring to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab -vs- Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) [(2015) 4 SCC 334], has issued detailed instructions providing the manner in which any excess amount paid to Government Servants/Pensioners/Family Pensioners would have to be made.

¶19

There is nothing to show that either in the impugned order or in the Counter-Affidavit filed by the First Respondent that before the excess payment claimed to have been made was effected, any show cause notice had been issued to the Petitioner calling for an explanation from him with supporting materials relied in that regard. Such incurable flaw in decision making by the Respondents is in violation of the principles of natural justice and would vitiate the impugned order. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the First Respondent is set aside leaving it open to the concerned authorities to appropriately deal with the matter following due process. It shall be incumbent upon the concerned authorities to issue show cause notice to the Petitioner along with workingsheet of the calculation for the excess payment claimed to have been made to him and after affording full opportunity of personal hearing to him and considering each of the objections that may be raised by him, a reasoned order shall be passed on merits and in accordance with law following the procedure laid down in the instructions in G.O. Ms. No. 286, Finance (Pension) Department dated 28.08.2018 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, uninhibited and uninfluenced by the earlier order passed in the matter, and the decision taken shall be communicated to the Petitioner under written acknowledgement.

¶20

In the event of the concerned authorities failing to initiate fresh such proceedings within 31.07.2022, any amount so far recovered from the Petitioner pursuant to the impugned order, which has been set aside, shall be refunded to him under written acknowledgment and report of compliance in that regard shall be filed before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.

¶21

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

¶22

In fine, the Writ Petition is ordered on the aforesaid terms. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar