Writ appeal against quashing of proceedings repatriating a Food Safety Officer to his parent department on grounds of negligence without notice. Court held he was permanently absorbed in the Food Safety Department, not on deputation, and that the order violated natural justice. Appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WA.No.1406/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 27.09.2024 Delivered on .10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
WA.No.1406/2024 & CMP.No.10055/2024
1.The Commissioner Food Safety Department No.359, Anna Salai, DMS Complex Teynampet, Chennai 600 006.
2.The Designated Officer Office of the District Food Safety Office Old Nattamai Building Complex, Salem 636 001.
... Appellants / Respondents Vs.
1.Mr.Jagannathan 2.The Director of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, No.359, Anna Salai, DMS Complex Teynampet, Chennai 600006.
... R1 / Writ Petitioner
... R2 / R3 in Writ Petition
1
WA.No.1406/2024
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 28.07.2023 in WP.No.24703/2018.
For Appellants : Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mrs.R.Anitha, Spl.GP For R1 : Mr.M.Vijayan, Senior counsel for Mr.K.Kulandaivelu
JUDGMENT
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
(1)Respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition in WP.No.24703/2018 filed by the 1st respondent, are the appellants in the above writ appeal and the writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.07.2023 allowing the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent herein, to quash the proceedings of the 1st appellant herein dated 14.02.2018 and the consequential proceedings of the 2nd appellant dated 20.02.2018 and further, to direct the appellants to continue the writ petitioner/1st respondent in the 1st appellant Department as it was done in the case of
2
WA.No.1406/2024
other Food Safety Officers appointed along with the 1st respondent/writ petitioner and for other reliefs including disbursement of pay by the 1st appellant herein.
(3)The 1st respondent herein was originally working as Health Inspector Grade-I with the 2nd respondent herein who is the 3rd respondent in the writ petition. When Food Safety Department was constituted, the 1st respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as Food Safety Officer on 20.09.2011 for Salem Block. Vide proceedings of the Deputy Director of Health Services, Salem, the 1st respondent/writ petitioner was relieved from the post of Health Inspector Grade-I and was asked to join duty as Food Safety Officer on the same day. Similarly, several other persons who were also working as Health Inspectors Grade-I, were appointed as Food Safety Officers and all the appointments came to be notified vide G.O.Ms.No.151, dated 20.04.2012.
3
WA.No.1406/2024
appellant. However, the 1st respondent/writ petitioner received a communication from the 1st appellant [1st respondent in the writ petition] directing the 2nd appellant to relieve the 1st respondent/writ petitioner from the post of Food Safety Officer and the 1st respondent/writ petitioner to report to the 1st appellant on 20.02.2018. In the said communication, it was alleged that the 1st respondent/writ petitioner failed to monitor and stop adulterated tea dust and thereby, did not perform his duty satisfactorily. Since this communication issued to the 1st respondent/writ petitioner was without issuing any show cause notice to him or calling for an explanation from the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, the 1st respondent filed the writ petition challenging the order of 1st appellant and the consequential proceedings of the 2nd appellant in WP.No.24703/2018.
(5)The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge on the main ground that the impugned order directing the 1st respondent/writ petitioner to report to the 1st appellant herein in view of certain deficiencies in the services of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, is unsustainable and the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. Aggrieved by the same, respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition have
4
WA.No.1406/2024
preferred the present writ appeal.
(6)Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants submitted that the 1st respondent/writ petitioner had been appointed as Food Safety Officer for Salem Block by the Commissioner of Food Safety vide proceedings dated 20.09.2011 only on deputation basis. Since the 2nd respondent was always considered as the parent Department of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, the impugned order was issued transferring the 1st respondent/writ petitioner to his parent Department. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that in view of the deficiencies pointed out as against 1st respondent/writ petitioner, the appellants thought it fit to send the 1st respondent/writ petitioner to his parent Department/2nd respondent herein and therefore, the 1st respondent/writ petitioner is not entitled to any salary as he did not do any work either in the 1st appellant's office or in the 2nd respondent's office. Learned Additional Advocate General referring to the irregularities pointed out in the impugned order, submitted that the order of learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition is unsustainable. He also pointed out that this Court while entertaining the writ petition, did
5
WA.No.1406/2024
6
WA.No.1406/2024
7
WA.No.1406/2024
seen that the Food Safety Department was integrated with the Health
Department. Therefore, the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the writ petitioner was deputed to Food Safety Department and the 1st respondent/writ petitioner was also holding lien to conclude that the 1st respondent/writ petitioner was bound to join the parent Department, namely, 2nd respondent herein, is not acceptable.
(11)From the order that is impugned in the writ petition, 1st respondent/writ petitioner was sent to 2nd respondent Department only on the basis of negligence and inefficiency against the 1st respondent/writ petitioner. Therefore, the learned Single Judge is perfectly right in holding that the impugned order directing the 1st respondent/writ petitioner who was hitherto working in the 1st appellant to the 2nd respondent pointing out certain deficiency in service, is unsustainable. When an order affecting the civil rights of the person is based on certain adverse findings against the individual, the 1st respondent/writ petitioner ought to have been given proper opportunity to put forth his case. This is possible only if a show cause notice is issued and thereafter, action is taken considering the
8
WA.No.1406/2024
[S.S.S.R., J.] [K.R.S., J.] 20.08.2024
AP
Internet : Yes Neutral Citation: Yes
9
WA.No.1406/2024
To
10
WA.No.1406/2024
S.S. SUNDAR, J., and K.RAJASEKAR, J.,
AP
Pre Delivery Judgment in WA.No.1406/2024
.10.2024
11
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petitioner was deputed to the Food Safety Department or permanently absorbed as a Food Safety Officer.
Whether an order transferring an employee based on adverse findings of negligence, without show cause notice, violates principles of natural justice.
The Commissioner, Food Safety Department
The Designated Officer, District Food Safety Office, Salem
Mr. Jagannathan
The Director of Public Health & Preventive Medicine
S.S. Sundar
K. Rajasekar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
