Allowed

D.Kamalakannan v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC11 Dec 2023WP/4295/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an administrative order dated 07.04.2010 in a service dispute, holding it was passed without considering the petitioner's explanation and documents submitted later, as the record falsely stated no submission was made.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; matter remanded to 1st respondent to consider case afresh with documents/witnesses and pass reasoned order within six months.

D.Kamalakannan Vs The Secretary to Government — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.4295 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11.12.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mrs.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶6

W.P.No.4295 of 2019

D.Kamalakannan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Secretary to Government Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, (CPPI) Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009

¶11

The Managing Director, Chennai Central Co-operative Bank, No.215, Prakasam Salai, Chennai – 600 010

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Prayer:

¶14

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the 1^st respondent pertaining to his order bearing G.O.Ms.No.40 dated 07.04.2010 and quash the same and consequently, direct the 1^st respondent to consider the Review petition dated 28.03.2008 along with witnesses and the documents filed by the petitioner under Section 154 r/w Rule 170 of Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and Rules 1988 in

¶15

proper perspective.

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

1/8

¶18

W.P.No.4295 of 2019

¶19

For Petitioner : M/s.A.Bharathi

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal for R1 Additional Government Pleader Mr.R.Balaramesh for R2

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The present Writ Petition has been filed for an issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the 1^st respondent pertaining to his order bearing G.O.Ms.No.40 dated 07.04.2010 and quash the same and consequently, direct the 1^st respondent to consider the Review Petition dated 28.03.2008 along with witnesses and the documents filed by the petitioner under Section 154 r/w Rule 170 of Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and Rules 1988 in proper perspective.

¶23

The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

¶24

(i) The petitioner was issued with a charge memo on 22.07.1993, for

¶25

which, the petitioner had given an explanation on 26.07.1993. On consideration of the same, the petitioner had been reinstated into service on 31.07.1993. Subsequently, the enquiry was re-opened in June, 1994 and an enquiry was conducted, in which, the charges against the petitioner, were held established by a report dated 10.07.1997.

¶26

(ii) Subsequently, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

2/8

¶28

W.P.No.4295 of 2019

¶29

in the year 1998 and an order was passed on 12.02.2002 imposing punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect and treating the period of suspension as period of leave. As against the same, the petitioner had filed a Revision under Section 153 of the Tamilnadu CoOperative Societies Act, 1983 and on 21.03.2006, the punishment imposed on the petitioner was set aside. The 2^nd respondent filed a review petition before the Government under Section 154 of the Act and an order was passed on 13.03.2008 setting aside the order dated 21.03.2006. As against the same, the petitioner filed a review petition before the Government and the same was summarily rejected on the ground that it was not filed within the prescribed period of time. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner has come up with the present petition.

¶30

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner had raised various grounds in the petition, she would restrict her contention to the aspect that for the enquiry being conducted on 09.03.2010 in the Review Petition, the petitioner has submitted his written explanation on 10.03.2010, whereas, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner had promised to submit documentary evidences to establish his statement on 10.03.2010, but has not submitted any of the documents he relied upon, till the order passed, i.e., 07.04.2010, thereby contended that the order has been passed by the 1^st respondent without considering the explanation of

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

3/8

¶33

W.P.No.4295 of 2019

¶34

the petitioner dated 10.03.2010 and hence pleaded to set aside the impugned order.

¶35

Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the documents placed on record.

¶36

It is pertinent to point out that the impugned order, viz., G.O.Ms.No.40 dated 07.04.2010 passed by the 1^st respondent would reveal that the petitioner has not submitted any explanations on or before 07.04.2010, but in reality, the petitioner has submitted his explanation /documents on 10.03.2010, hence it is clear that the respondents have failed to consider the same while passing order. The relevant portion of the order, viz., Paragraph No.12 dated 07.04.2010 is hereby extracted as

¶37

follows:-

¶38

“12/ 09/03/2010 md;W neh;Kf tprhuiz eilbgw;wJ/ ,U jug;gpdUk; fye;J bfhz;ldh;/ kapyhg;g{h; fpisapy; ele;j KiwnfL rk;ke;jkhf murhiz 378y; Vw;bfdnt ghprPyiz bra;ag;gl;L Miz btspapl;l gpd;g[k;. kPz;Lk; mnj epfH;t[ Fwpj;J jd;kPJ Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;Ls;sJ vd kDjhuh; thjpl;lhh;/ nkYk; eph;thfj; jug;g[ rhl;rp tprhhpf;fg;gltpy;iy vdt[k; kDjhuh; thjpl;lhh;/ nkYk; eph;thfj; jug;g[ rhl;rpahf jpU/o/Mh;/ghg[. nkyhsh; tprhhpf;fgl;ljhf t';fpapd; tHf;fwp"h; vLj;Jiuj;jhh;/ Mdhy; kDjhuh; eph;thfj; jug;g[ rhl;rp KGikahf tprhhpf;fgltpy;iy vd bjhptpj;jhh;/ mjw;fhd mj;jhl;rp Mtz';fis 10/03/2010f;Fs; rkh;g;gpg;gjhf kDjhuh; Twpdhh;/ mth; ,Jtiu mfw;fhd mj;jhl;rp Mtz';fis rkh;g;gpf;ftpy;iy/ vdnt. Mtz';fspd; mog;gilapy; ghprPypf;fg;llJ/ kW Ma;t[ kDtpy; g[jpajhf ve;j fhuz';fisa[k; bjhptpf;ftpy;iy/ rPuha;t[ kDtpy; bjhptpj;jitfisna kPz;Lk; bjhptpj;Js;shh;/ vdnt ,tuJ kW Ma;t[ kDtpid epuhfhpf;fyhk; vd muR Kot[ bra;J mt;thnw MizapLfpwJ/”

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

4/8

¶41

W.P.No.4295 of 2019

¶42

That apart, in order to substantiate whether any documents have been submitted to the respondents on 10.03.2010, this Court, on 30.11.2023, directed the 1^st respondent to verify whether any such documents are annexed in the said file. The written submission, which was submitted by the petitioner on 10.03.2010 for the enquiry conducted on 09.03.2010, is now produced before this Court, however, it is clear that the authorities have not at all taken the same into account, but passed an order dated 07.04.2010 stating that the petitioner has not submitted any documentary evidences to establish his statement, which is without application of mind and without adhering to the principles of natural justice.

¶43

In the light of the above without going into the merits of the petitioner's case, the impugned order dated 07.04.2010 passed by the 1^st respondent is hereby quashed for the sole reason that the explanation / documents submitted by the petitioner on 10.03.2010 was not considered and the matter is remanded back to the 1^st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner afresh along with the witnesses and documents filed by the petitioner in a proper perspective by adhering to the principles of natural justice and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of six

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

5/8

¶46

W.P.No.4295 of 2019

¶47

months from the date of receipt of copy of a order.

¶48

Accordingly, the present Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶49

11.12.2023

¶50

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking / Nonspeaking order ssd

¶51

¶52

The Secretary to Government Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, (CPPI) Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009

¶53

The Managing Director, Chennai Central Co-operative Bank, No.215, Prakasam Salai, Chennai – 600 010

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

6/8

¶56

W.P.No.4295 of 2019

¶57

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN J.

¶58

ssd

¶59

W.P.No.4295 of 2019

¶60

11.12.2023

¶61

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶62

7/8

¶63

W.P.No.4295 of 2019

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶65

8/8

D.Kamalakannan v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Kamalakannan v. The Secretary to Government

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

K.Balusamy, Vs State Bank of India

Mr.G.Sambathkumar Vs The Principal Secretary to

Balasubramanian.v Vs Union of India

Dr.T.Venkatesan Vs The Commissioner

S.N.Janardhanan, Vs The Principal Secretary

M.Thangappan, Vs The Secretary