Madras High Court
K.C.Ravichandran vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 11 December, 2023
Author: R. Mahadevan
Bench: R. Mahadevan, Mohammed Shaffiq
W.A.No.3367 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.12.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A.No.3367 of 2023
K.C.Ravichandran .. Appellant
Vs.
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department
Secretariat, Chennai-9 .. Respondent
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the order
dated 02.08.2023 passed in W.P.No.957 of 2022.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Sivakumar
For Respondents : Mr.Silambanan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.C.Selvaraj
Additional Government Pleader
....
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.A.No.3367 of 2023
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
Challenging the order dated 02.08.2023 passed by the learned Judge in
W.P.No.957 of 2022, the appellant / writ petitioner has preferred this appeal.
2.The appellant, who is working as a Special Officer in the respondent
Department, was awarded punishment of stoppage of increment for six months
without cumulative effect for the charge that he had failed to insure the
computer and other goods in the godown as the same were destroyed in a fire
accident and thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs.6,30,000/- to the respondent
Department. Aggrieved by the order of punishment, he filed W.P.No.957 of
2022, which was dismissed by the learned Judge, by order dated 02.08.2023,
which is impugned in this appeal.
3.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Judge
has erred in not appreciating the evidence in both the Departmental Enquiry and
the Section 87 Enquiry while passing the order. The learned counsel further
submitted that The appellant was not an Administrator at the time of accident
which took place on 10.07.2013. The charge does not contain any material
evidence for arriving at the sum of Rs.6,30,000/- and no material particulars
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
were produced by the Department to substantiate the charge and thus, no loss
has been caused by the appellant to the Department. As per the order of the
Special Officer, Kanchipuram District Consumer Wholesale Store vide
No.4192/2000/E7 dated 27.05.2010, only the Secretary / Deputy Secretary is
responsible for the insurance of the properties of the store as per Bye Law
No.29(c)(ix) and therefore, the appellant is in no way responsible for insuring
the properties. Without considering all these aspects, the learned Judge erred in
dismissing the writ petition. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for setting
aside the impugned order passed by the learned Judge and to allow the prayer
as sought for in the writ petition.
4.On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing
for the respondent submitted that the learned Judge has passed the order
impugned after taking note of the contentions raised on both sides and also the
documents on record properly and hence, the same does not require any
interference in the hands of this Court.
5.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records
carefully and meticulously.
6.Based on the pleadings and the documents produced by the parties, the
learned Judge has clearly held that the appellant has been relieved from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
proceedings under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act only
on the ground that there was no wilful negligence established against him and
such a finding will not have any bearing on the Departmental Proceedings. With
respect to the fixing of responsibility, even it is seen from the Surcharge
Proceedings that the appellant has shirked his responsibility, but he has been
relieved from the proceedings solely on the ground that shifting of the godown
was not informed to him. It is also seen from the records that the appellant has
been given opportunity to put forth his case before the authorities. In the
circumstances, the learned Judge has correctly held that when the appellant,
being a Special Officer, has failed to monitor the things in the office where he
has to supervise and hence, it cannot be said that the charges have not been
made out and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. This court does not find
any ground much less valid ground to interfere with the order so passed by the
learned Judge.
7.In fine, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
[R.M.D, J.] [M.S.Q, J.]
11.12.2023
Neutral Citation : Yes
gya
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department
Secretariat, Chennai-9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
gya
11.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
