Partly allowed

M.Muthuraja kumar v. Chairman cum Managing Director

Madras HC29 Oct 2024WP/18855/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed an order for recovery of penal rent and emission of recovery from salary because no prior notice was issued, violating natural justice. The matter was remitted to the respondents to decide afresh after hearing the petitioner and determining the quantum of rent in accordance with rules.

What did the court decide?

Impugned recovery order quashed; matter remitted to respondents to issue notice, hear petitioner, and decide rent quantum.

M.Muthuraja kumar Vs Chairman cum Managing Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.18855 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 29.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

W.P.No.18855 of 2020

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P.Nos.23441 & 23444 of 2020

¶9

M.Muthuraja Kumar ....Petitioner

¶10

¶11

Chairman Cum Managing Director, TANGEDCO

¶12

No.144, NPKRR Maaligai, 10^th Floor,

¶13

Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶14

Executive Engineer Kundah Power Station, Kundah Bridge Post, The Nilgiris -643 219

¶15

Assistant Engineer/Construction Kundah Power Station -2 Nilgiris – 643 219

¶16

Asistant Executive Engineer Construction, Hydro Power Plant Emerald, Kundah, Nilgiris -643 209.

¶17

Superintending Engineer Kundah Generation Circle, Kundah Bridge Post, The Nilgiris-643 219.

¶18

....Respondents

¶19

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,

¶20

__________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 5

¶21

W.P.No.18855 of 2020 pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 20.06.2020 vide Ka.No/U.Po/Ka/MiNi2/Ko.k/A.No 46/2020 passed by the 3^rd respondent and consequential order of recovery dated 02.07.2020 vide K.No/S.P/K.M.N.2/K.K/A.No/288/22020 on the file of the 2^nd Respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to allot quarters to the petitioner in Porthimund,

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Kulandaivelu For Respondents : Mr.David Sudan Singh Additional Government Pleader

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The impugned Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned

¶25

order dated 02.07.2020 and the consequential recovery order

¶26

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently submit

¶27

that the impugned order suffers infirmity as no notice was issued in accordance with principles of natural justice.

¶28

3. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently submits that,

¶29

petitioner have been unauthorizedly occupying the quarters inspite of his transfer, therefore on following the due procedure, ordered for recovery of penal rents were issued. Therefore, there are no merits in the petition.

¶30

__________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 5

¶31

W.P.No.18855 of 2020 4. This Court has carefully perused the impugned order dated

¶32

02.07.2020, through which, this Court could not find any material so as to infer the issuance of notice prior to passing the impugned order. It is pertinent to mention here that the order of recovery from the monthly salary would have serious consequences upon the rights of an individual. Therefore, before passing the order of recovery, it is mandatory on the part of the respondent to issue notice.

¶33

5.Accordingly, this Court finds some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is in this background, I deem it appropriate to quash the recovery order and remit back the matter to the respondent, to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law and after calling for an explanation from the petitioner.

¶34

6. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned notice dated 02.07.2020 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent with a direction to issue notice to the petitioner and after receiving explanation from petitioner, the respondent is directed to decide the quantum of rent in accordance with law and applicable rules. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶35

__________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 5

¶36

Index :Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes Speaking order : Yes Sma To

¶37

W.P.No.18855 of 2020

¶38

29.10.2024

¶39

Chairman Cum Managing Director, TANGEDCO No.144, NPKRR Maaligai, 10^th Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶40

Executive Engineer Kundah Power Station, Kundah Bridge Post, The Nilgiris -643 219

¶41

Assistant Engineer/Construction Kundah Power Station -2 Nilgiris – 643 219

¶42

Asistant Executive Engineer Construction, Hydro Power Plant Emerald, Kundah, Nilgiris -643 209.

¶43

Superintending Engineer Kundah Generation Circle, Kundah Bridge Post, The Nilgiris-643 219.

¶44

C.KUMARAPPAN, J

¶45

Sma

¶46

__________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 5

¶47

W.P.No.18855 of 2020

¶48

W.P.No.18855 of 2020

¶49

29.10.2024

¶50

__________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 5

M.Muthuraja kumar v. Chairman cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Muthuraja kumar v. Chairman cum Managing Director

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.Sivalingam Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

R.Paramasivam Vs The Secretary to Government

R.Rajasekaran Vs The Managing Director

B.Thirunageswaran Vs Director of Fisheries

R.Nandagopalakrishnan Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

V.Shankaran, N.S.G Commando Vs The Government of Tamilnadu