Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Agriculture vs A.Natarajan (Died) on 5 July, 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A.(MD)No.655 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013
1.The Commissioner of Agriculture,
Agricultural Department,
Chepauk, Chennai-5.
2.The Joint Director of Agriculture,
Agricultural Department,
Collectorate, Thoothukud District,
Thoothukudi.
3.The Regional Accounts Officer (Audit),
Agricultural Department,
No.11, Lady Doak College Road, Chinnachokkikulam,
Madurai. ... Appellants
Vs.
1.A.Natarajan (Died)
2.N.Praveen Kumar ... Respondents
(The second respondent was impleaded vide order of this Court, dated
05.07.2023 in C.M.P.(MD)No.7859 of 2023)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set
aside the order, dated 18.04.2013 passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.
3462 of 2010.
For Appellant :Mr.M.Sidharthan
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondents :Mr.Vikraman
for Mr.R.Anand
****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.)
The respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants herein.
The first respondent herein, as petitioner, had filed the Writ Petition
challenging an order, dated 31.08.2009, wherein, a sum of Rs.8,16,260/-
was retained from the terminal benefits of the Writ Petitioner on the
ground that he has suffered an audit objection, while he was working as
Agricultural Officer, Killikulam, Tuticorin District. This amount of
Rs.8,12,260/- relates to the period between 1993 and 1994 and a special
audit objection of the period between 1993 and 1994.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.According to the Writ Petitioner, he had attained
superannuation on 31.07.2009 and when he was awaiting for his
monetary benefits, the order impugned in the Writ Petition has been
passed ordering to recover a sum of Rs.8,12,260/-. He had contended
that without conducting any enquiry or issuing any show cause notice,
the recovery order has been passed.
3.The appellants/respondents had filed a counter in the Writ
Petition contending that the Writ Petitioner was responsible for the
maintenance of Coconut Nursery, production of quality coconut
seedlings, maintenance of records and registers of coconut nursery,
maintenance of cash book, procurement of quality nuts, stock of coconut
nuts, stock of coconut seedlings and others on a day-to-day basis. When
the Writ Petitioner was working as an Agricultural Officer, he had
violated the departmental rules and hence, disciplinary action has been
initiated by the Commissioner of Agriculture and final order has been
passed on 17.09.2007 imposing one year stoppage of increment without
cumulative effect and for recovery of Rs.31,500/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.According to the respondents, the lapses of the Writ
Petitioner have been pointed out in the Regional Accounts Officer
(Audit) at Madurai in paras 10 and 13 of 1993-94 audit and audit para
No.3 of Special Audit 1993-94. The total amount of the audit paras
mentioned above is Rs.8,12,260/-. The respondents have further
contended that the Writ Petitioner himself has given a declaration letter
on 06.07.2009 and an indemnity bond on the same day. He has also
given a consent letter on 07.07.2009 to recover the said amount from his
terminal benefits. Based upon the said consent letters and indemnity
bond, the order impugned in the Writ Petition has been passed and
therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
5.The Writ Court had an occasion to consider a letter, dated
08.06.2012, which purported to have cleared three audit objections,
which were the basis of withholding the Writ Petitioner's retirement
benefits. According to the Writ Court, all the audit objections have been
cleared on 13.06.2012. However, after going through the letter, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
08.06.2012 addressed by the Regional Accounts Officer (Audit) to the
Commissioner of Agricultural at Chepauk, we are not in a position to
agree with the Writ Court that the three audit objections have been
cleared under the said order.
6.The Writ Court had set aside the order of recovery and has
remitted the matter back to the second respondent to consider the report
of the Regional Accounts Officer, dated 08.06.2012 and to ascertain
whether all the audit objections have been cleared. In case, if the audit
objections have been cleared, the amount shall be disbursed to the Writ
Petitioner within a period of eight weeks.
7.In view of the fact that the communication, dated 08.06.2012
does not reflect the removal of audit objections, we do not find any
reason for remanding the matter back to the second respondent for
conducting fresh enquiry. No records have been placed before us
indicating the fact that all the three audit objections have already been
removed. In fact, the communication, dated 24.09.2012 clearly indicates
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that the audit objections have been removed only on the ground that the
said amount of Rs.8,12,260/- has already been recovered from the Writ
Petitioner. Therefore, the present appeal has been filed only to bring to
the notice of the Court that already amounts have been recovered and
only on the basis of the recovery, the audit objections have been
removed.
8.When the recovery has already been effected and the audit
objections have been removed only on the basis of the said recovery, no
purpose would be served in remitting the matter to the second respondent
for conducting fresh enquiry. However, since the order of remand to the
second respondent has not been challenged by the Writ Petitioner, we are
not in a position to consider the order impugned in the Writ Petition on
its own merits.
9.The Writ Petitioner had challenged the order of punishment
imposed upon him in the disciplinary proceedings before the appellate
authority and the same is said to be pending. In case, if the appellate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
authority arrives at a finding that the Writ Petitioner has to be exonerated,
that should be taken into account by the authorities for disbursement of
the terminal benefits withheld due to three audit objections.
10.In view of the above deliberation, the order of the Writ
Court is set aside and the Writ Appeal stands allowed with the aforesaid
observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [R.V.J.,]
05.07.2023
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
cmr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
cmr
Judgment made in
W.A.(MD)No.655 of 2013
Dated:
05.07.2023
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
