D.a.Babu Ravivarman Vs the Joint Director of agriculture

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the sum of Rs.2,17,623/- recovered from the Petitioner’s DCRG.

¶15

For Petitioner(s):

¶16

Mr P.Rajendran

¶17

For Respondent(s): Mr.R.V.Dinesh Rajkumar, Additional Government Pleader

¶18

__________ Page1 of 6

¶19

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

¶20

WP No. 9630 of 2026

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to refund the sum of Rs.2,17,623/recovered from the Petitioners DCRG.

¶23

The petitioner was initially appointed as an Agricultural Officer in the Department of Agriculture, Government of Tamil Nadu, on 08.05.1986 and was later promoted as Assistant Director of Agriculture in the year 2008. He retired from service on 31.10.2017. One Thanga Kalaivanan, who was working as Depot Manager at the Agricultural Extension Centre, Madhanur, died on 30.07.2012 while he was in charge of the stock in the godown. Subsequently, when the godown was opened on 24.08.2012, a shortage of stock to the extent of Rs.4,35,246/- was found. On the verge of retirement, the petitioner was compelled to accept the responsibility for 50% of the alleged loss and a sum of Rs.2,17,623/- was recovered from his DCRG at the time of his retirement on 31.10.2017. The remaining 50% was ordered to be recovered from one Radha, Agricultural Officer. However, the said recovery was challenged by her in W.P.No.14941 of

¶24

2018 and this Court set aside the recovery proceedings by order dated

¶25

Page2 of 6

¶26

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

¶27

WP No. 9630 of 2026

¶28

14.10.2024. Since the recovery from the petitioner was made without following the principles of natural justice and without determining his liability in accordance with law, the petitioner submitted several representations seeking refund of the amount recovered from his DCRG. The petitioner submitted his latest representation dated 25.06.2025 to the respondents requesting refund of Rs.2,17,623/-. However, no orders have been passed on the said representation till date. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶29

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶30

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a mandamus

¶31

is issued to the respondents to consider and pass orders on the petitioner’s representation dated 25.06.2025 on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.

¶32

16-03-2026

¶33

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶34

SRN

¶35

__________ Page3 of 6

¶36

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

¶37

WP No. 9630 of 2026