Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu ... vs K.Arunachalam on 3 August, 2022
W.A.(MD)No.790 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
W.A.(MD)No.790 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.6720 of 2022
1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the
Special Commissioner & Secretary to Government,
Department of Agriculture,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner,
Department of Horticulture,
Ezhilagam,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
3.The Deputy Director of Horticulture,
Virudhunagar – 626 002. : Appellants
Vs.
K.Arunachalam : Respondent
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.790 of 2022
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent,
against the order dated 22.11.2021 made in W.P.(MD)No.9220 of
2014.
For Appellants : Mr.A.K.Manikkam
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
**************
[Delivered by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]
One Mohamed Ali Jinnah, who was the Deputy
Horticulture Officer in Sivakasi, was holding additional charge of
Deputy Horticulture Officer, Srivilliputhur also. One Arunachalam
was transferred and posted as Deputy Horticulture Officer,
Srivilliputhur and he joined duty on 04.11.2011. Since Mohamed
Ali Jinnah, who was holding the additional charge of Srivilliputhur,
had not handed over the charge to Arunachalam, the latter sent a
communication dated 21.04.2011, in this regard, to his higher
officials. It appeared that Mohamed Ali Jinnah also has sent a
communication, stating that he would return the missing stocks or
otherwise, pay the cost of them. In this background, an inspection
was conducted and by order dated 21.03.2013, a sum of
Rs.2,84,080/- was determined as the value of the missing stocks at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.790 of 2022
Srivilliputhur and Mohamed Ali Jinnah and Arunachalam were
directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,42,040/- each [50% of Rs.2,84,080/-].
2.Aggrieved by the said order, Arunachalam filed an
appeal to the Commissioner of Horticulture, on 17.02.2014,
contending that he had joined duty only on 04.11.2011 and
therefore, he cannot be mulcted with liability in respect of things
that were done by the said Mohamed Ali Jinnah, who was incharge
of the Srivilliputhur unit. During the pendency of the appeal, a
further inspection was done and a revised order dated 12.08.2013
was passed, enhancing the value of the lost stocks to Rs.3,44,180/-
and Arunachalam was directed to refund an additional sum of
Rs.60,000/- apart from Rs.1,42,040/-.
3.Aggrieved by the order dated 12.08.2013, Arunachalam
filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.9220 of 2014, which has been
disposed of by a learned Single Judge on 22.11.2021, with certain
directions which are as under:
“13.To meet the ends of justice, this
Court is passing the following order:
i. The impugned order, dated
12.08.2013, is set aside as far as the amount
of Rs.1,72,090/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy
Two Thousand and Ninety only) is concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.790 of 2022
ii. As far as the amount of Rs.
60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) is
concerned, the Government is directed to
consider the petitioner's appeal, dated
17.02.2014, and pass orders within two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
iii. The respondents are directed to
revoke the suspension of the petitioner
forthwith and disburse the terminal benefits
at the earliest and continue the appeal
proceedings for Rs.60,000/- under Pension
Act.”
4.Aggrieved by the above, the present Writ Appeal has
been filed by the State Government.
5.Heard Mr.A.K.Manikkam, learned Special Government
Pleader appearing for the appellants.
6.Learned Special Government Pleader contended that
under Rule 17 of the Fundamental Rules, Arunachalam was
required to send a report to his higher officials within seven [7]
days of joining duty, but whereas, Arunachalam joined duty on
04.11.2011 and sent a report only on 21.11.2011 and therefore,
Arunachalam is also equally liable as Mohamed Ali Jinnah.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.790 of 2022
7.The learned Single Judge has observed that, while the
appeal of Arunachalam was pending with the Government, the
revised order dated 12.08.2013 was passed and on the eve of
retirement, Arunachalam was placed under suspension and
recoveries effected. Just because Arunachalam had not reported to
the authorities about the missing stocks within seven [7] days from
04.11.2011, that by itself cannot mean that Arunachalam is liable
for the missing stocks, especially in the light of the fact that
Mohamed Ali Jinnah has accepted that he would account for the
missing stocks or inter alia make the payments for them. In such
view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the
learned Single Judge, warranting interference.
8.In the result, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[P.N.P.,J.] & [R.H.,J.]
03.08.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
MR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.790 of 2022
P.N.PRAKASH, J.
and
R.HEMALATHA, J.
MR
ORDER MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.790 of 2022
03.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
