Madras High Court
Sethurajapuram Water Shed ... vs Tamil Nadu Government on 11 January, 2021
S.A.(MD)No.9 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
S.A.(MD)No.9 of 2021
1. Sethurajapuram Water Shed Committee,
Sethurajapuram Sanga Registration No.55/2000
through its President,
Thanga Azhagu,
W/o. Murugan,
Kasilingapuram Village,
Pandalkudi Post,
Aruppukottai Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
2. Thanga Azhagu
President of 1st plaintiff
W/o. Murugan,
Kasilingapuram Village,
Pandalkudi Post,
Aruppukottai Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
3. Meyyakkal,
Secretary of 1st plaintiff,
W/o. Ganesan,
Kasilingapuram Village,
Aruppukottai Taluk,
Virudhunagar.
4. Ramasamy,
1st plaintiff Committee President,
S/o. Narayanasamy Reddiyar,
Sethurajapuram President Village,
http://www.judis.nic.in Pandalkudi Post,
1/8
S.A.(MD)No.9 of 2021
Aruppukottai Taluk,
Virudhunagar District. ... Appellants
versus
1. Tamil Nadu Government
Rep. by the District Collector,
Virudhunagar District.
2. The Project Economist,
Virudhunagar District Rural
Development Agency,
Virudhunagar.
3. The Project Manager,
Virudhunagar District Rural
Development Agency,
Virudhunagar ... Respondents
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Proceedure
Code, against the Judgment and Decree dated 13.03.2020 made in A.S.No.58
of 2019 on the file of the Sub Court, Aruppukottai, confirming the Judgment
and Decree dated 13.09.2019 made in O.S.No.294 of 2009, on the file of the
Additional District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Hema Karthikeyan
for Mr.P.Subbaraj
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs in O.S.No.294 of 2009, whose suit for declaration and
permanent injunction was dismissed by the Trial Court, upon the affirmation of
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.(MD)No.9 of 2021
the said Judgment and Decree by the Appellate Court in A.S.No.58 of 2019,
are on appeal.
2. The suit was laid by the plaintiffs, contending that they were
entrusted with a work of Water Shed Management in Sethurajapuram Village,
Virudhunagar District. The Society established for the said purpose was
registered as “Sethurajapuram Neervadi Paguthi Sangam” with Registration
No.55 of 2000. According to the plaintiffs, they have completed the work that
was entrusted to them properly. However, the first defendant proceeded
against the plaintiffs, claiming that there have been irregularities in the work
that was done by them and an enquiry was conducted pursuant to the charge.
The Enquiry Officer filed a report stating that there has been a large-scale of
irregularities, like, double payments having been made. A person, who was
detained in prison, was shown to have worked on the same day. Based on the
Enquiry Officer's report, the first defendant had passed an order, directing for
recovery of a sum of Rs.1,64,339.65p. Upon receipt of the said order, the
plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that the order passed by the first defendant
is null and void.
3. The suit was resisted by the defendants contending that the suit
itself is not maintainable. It was further contended that the plaintiffs were
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.(MD)No.9 of 2021
given an opportunity to explain their stand and proceedings were taken only
upon the complaint received from the public. It is also pointed out that an
Officer was appointed as an Enquiry Officer and he had conducted a detailed
enquiry and submitted a report. It is only based on the said report, the order
impugned in the suit was passed by the first defendant.
4. At trial, the second plaintiff was examined as P.W.1, 4th plaintiff
was examined as P.W.2 and two other independent witnesses were examined as
P.W.3 and P.W.4 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. One Balamurugan was
examined as D.W.1 and one Ganesan was examined as D.W.2. Ex.B1 was
marked. Exs.C1 to C3 were marked on the plaintiffs side through the
witnesses.
5. The learned trial Judge, upon considering the evidence on record,
concluded that the suit is not maintainable and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved
over the same, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in A.S.No.58 of 2019 on the
file of the Sub Court, Aruppukottai. The learned Subordinate Judge, on re-
appreciation of the evidence on record and law relating to the maintainability
of the suit under Section 9 of C.P.C. concluded that the suit is maintainable.
The learned Subordinate Judge, however, agreed the finding of the trial Court
that there was no breach of principles of natural justice and plaintiffs were
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.(MD)No.9 of 2021
given sufficient opportunity before the passing of the impugned order by the
first defendant. On the said conclusion, the learned Appellate Judge dismissed
the appeal and confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court.
Hence, the second appeal.
6. Mr.K.Hema Karthikeyan would vehemently contend that the
Appellate Court was not right in overlooking the fact that the copy of the
enquiry report was not furnished to the plaintiffs and there was no opportunity
given after the submission of the enquiry report by the Enquiry Officer. He
would also contend that there is no basis for fixation of the loss at
Rs.1,64,339.65 in the order impugned in the suit.
7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
appellants/plaintiffs.
8. As regards the first submission, the learned counsel wants to
impart service law principle to contend that the furnishing of the enquiry
report is mandatory. I do not think that such plea could be countenanced in the
case on hand. The plaintiffs were entrusted with certain works on behalf of the
Government. On receipt of complaints regarding irregularities in the work
done by the plaintiffs, an enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer filed
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.(MD)No.9 of 2021
a report. Based on the said report, the District Collector passed an order for
recovery. These proceedings cannot be equated to the disciplinary proceedings
under Service Law and the principles under the Service Law cannot be
extended to this kind of enquiry.
9. It is seen from the records that the Enquiry Officer had given
opportunity to the plaintiffs at every stage and at the request of the plaintiffs.,
documents were referred for expert opinion by the Finger Print Bureau and the
Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the conduct of the plaintiffs has
caused loss to the tune of Rs.1,64,339.65. In the light of the said factual
findings, I do not think that the non-furnishing of the enquiry report would
vitiate proceedings. As regards the second contention of the learned counsel
for the appellants/plaintiffs, there is no basis for fixation of the loss at Rs.
1,64,339.65. The learned Appellate Judge has considered the evidence and
concluded that the order of the District Collector dated 03.11.2009 has been
passed after taking into consideration of the relevant materials that were
available. Despite his best efforts, the learned counsel is unable to show that
the said findings of the learned Appellate Judge could be termed as perverse.
In the absence of perversity in the findings, I do not think that the factual
findings can be disturbed in the appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C. Despite
his best efforts, the learned counsel is unable to show any question of law
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.(MD)No.9 of 2021
much less substantial question of law arising for consideration in the appeal.
Hence, the Second Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed without being
admitted. No costs.
11.01.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ogy
To
1. The Sub Court,
Aruppukottai.
2. The Additional District Munsif Court,
Aruppukottai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.(MD)No.9 of 2021
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
ogy
S.A.(MD)No.9 of 2021
11.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
