Madras High Court
K.Murugaiah vs The Principal Secretary To ... on 28 March, 2023
W.P.(MD).Nos.22284, 22491, 22595 and 22760 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD).Nos.22284, 22491, 22595 and 22760 of 2019
W.P.(MD).No.22284 of 2019:
K.Murugaiah ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Environment and Forest Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Panagal Malligai,
Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
3.The Chief Conservator of Forest Field Director,
Kalakad Mundathurai Tiger Reserve (Tiger Project),
Tirunelveli – 07.
4.The Deputy Director and Wild Life Warden,
Kalad Sanctuary,
Kalad,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.22284, 22491, 22595 and 22760 of 2019
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent vide his
proceedings in G.O.(2Pa).No.05 dated 09.02.2019 and quash the same as illegal
and further directing the respondents to repay a sum of Rs.39,890/- to the
petitioner which was recovered from him.
W.P.(MD).No.22491 of 2019:
K.Murugaiah ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Panagal Malligai,
Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
2.The Chief Conservator of Forest Field Director,
Kalakad Mundathurai Tiger Reserve (Tiger Project),
Tirunelveli – 07.
3.The Deputy Director and Wild Life Warden,
Kalad Sanctuary,
Kalad,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent vide his
proceedings in Se.Mu.Order No.AaAa3/12813/2014 dated 28.06.2019, quash
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.22284, 22491, 22595 and 22760 of 2019
the same as illegal and further directing the respondents to repay a sum of
Rs.71,311/- to the petitioner which was recovered from him.
W.P.(MD).No.22595 of 2019:
K.Murugaiah ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Panagal Malligai,
Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
2.The Chief Conservator of Forest Field Director,
Kalakad Mundathurai Tiger Reserve (Tiger Project),
Tirunelveli – 07.
3.The Deputy Director and Wild Life Warden,
Kalad Sanctuary,
Kalad,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent vide his
proceedings in Se.Mu.Order No.AaAa3/11431/2014 dated 25.07.2019, quash
the same as illegal and further directing the respondents to return back a sum of
Rs.79,372/- to the petitioner which was recovered from him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.22284, 22491, 22595 and 22760 of 2019
W.P.(MD).No.22760 of 2019:
K.Murugaiah ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Environment and Forest Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Panagal Malligai,
Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
3.The Chief Conservator of Forest Field Director,
Kalakad Mundathurai Tiger Reserve (Tiger Project),
Tirunelveli – 07.
4.The Deputy Director and Wild Life Warden,
Kalad Sanctuary,
Kalad,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining
to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent vide his proceedings in G.O.
(2g).No.12 dated 14.03.2019, quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.22284, 22491, 22595 and 22760 of 2019
(In all Writ Petitions):
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Jayaramachandran
For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmugavel,
Additional Government Pleader.
COMMON ORDER
All the writ petitions were filed by the same person and the issues to be
decided in all these batch of writ petitions are similar and the relief sought for
are also one and the same. Hence, all the writ petitions are taken together for
hearing and a common order is passed.
2. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.22284 of 2019 is filed challenging
the order passed in G.O.(2Pa)No.05 dated 09.02.2019 and further directing the
respondents to repay a sum of Rs.39,890/- to the petitioner which was
recovered from him. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.22491 of 2019 is filed
challenging the order dated 28.06.2019 and further directing the respondents to
repay a sum of Rs.71,311/- to the petitioner which was recovered from him.
The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.22595 of 2019 is filed challenging the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.22284, 22491, 22595 and 22760 of 2019
dated 25.07.2019 and further directing the respondents to return back a sum of
Rs.79,372/- to the petitioner which was recovered from him. The Writ Petition
in W.P.(MD)No.22760 of 2019 is filed to quash the order dated 14.03.2019.
3. The petitioner is W.P.(MD)No.22284 of 2019 was appointed as
Forester on 19.08.1993. Thereafter, ousted from service for want of vacancy on
11.10.1983 and again appointed on 17.10.1984. Thereafter, the petitioner was
promoted as Forester Range Officer on 09.01.2010 and he was transferred to
Tirukurankudi Forest Range within Kalakad Wild Life Sanctuary by the third
respondent on 03.09.2011 and continued in the said place until 19.04.2013 and
thereafter, transferred to Pavanasam Range. The respondents initiated
disciplinary proceedings by issuing show cause notice under Rule 17(a) of
Tamil Nadu Civil Services (C.C.A) Rules 1953 vide proceedings dated
17.05.2013 alleging that without completion of maintenance of advertisement
Board work and building maintenance work, the petitioner had forwarded the
expenditure record for a sum of Rs.39,890/-. After the receipt of the show
cause notice, the petitioner submitted explanation on 09.06.2013. After the
receipt of the explanation, the respondents have passed recovery order dated
04.07.2013 to recover Rs.39,890/- in 3 installments. Aggrieved over the same,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.22284, 22491, 22595 and 22760 of 2019
the petitioner has filed appeal on 04.09.2013 and the same was rejected vide
order dated 23.06.2015. In the meanwhile, on attaining superannuation the
petitioner retired on 28.02.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred a
detailed review on 16.01.2016 before the first respondent. Since no action was
taken, the petitioner preferred W.P.(MD)No.16070 of 2018 and this Court
directed the respondents therein to consider and pass orders within a period of 6
weeks. Thereafter, the first respondent has passed the impugned order vide
proceedings in G.O.(2Pa) No.05 dated 09.02.2019 rejecting the petitioner's
review application and thereafter other impugned orders were also passed.
Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
4. The respondents have filed counter stating that while the petitioner
was working in Thirukurungudi Range of Kalakad Division from 05.09.2011 to
19.04.2013, he carried out the sanctioned work in DSO No.116/2012-13 dated
28.01.2013 for maintaining the Publicity Board 2012-2013 and DSO No.
145/2012-13 dated 02.03.2013 to maintain the Forest Range Officers Quarters,
Thirukurungudi Range 2012-2013 and received Rs.39,890/-. The petitioner has
carried out the work and obtained the funds and to that effect necessary entries
were made in the Measurement book No.4/2012. The fourth respondent had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.22284, 22491, 22595 and 22760 of 2019
taken up annual office inspection of Thirukurungudi Range Office on
25.04.2013 and he found that no such works were carried out, but for the
alleged completed work the funds were released to him. Hence a statement was
obtained from the Forester namely Abdul Rahman, whereby he has deposed
that the petitioner has not carried out the said works but had received funds.
Hence, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil
Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The petitioner did not
submit any explanation to the charges. Finally, the third respondent passed an
order dated 04.07.2013 confirming the allegations and recovery was ordered.
The petitioner preferred an appeal and review application and both were
rejected.
5. Heard Mr.A.Jayaramachandran, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.S.Shanmugavel, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents and perused the records.
6. The contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is
that even for disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(a), a minimum procedure
should be followed. More so, when the petitioner was on the verge of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.22284, 22491, 22595 and 22760 of 2019
retirement and recovery of any amount would have serious impact on his
terminal benefits. Hence, the impugned order is violative of principles of
natural justice.
7. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents vehemently opposed to such contention and submitted that they
received a written statement from the Section Forester namely, Abdul Rahman.
Based on his statement, the negligence on part of the petitioner was found out.
Because of the negligence in duty with dishonest intention and for
misappropriation of Government funds, the present impugned orders for
recovery were passed. Since, the petitioner was on the verge of his retirement,
proceedings under Rule 17(a) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1955 was initiated and hence minor punishment of recovery was
imposed. Recovery of amount is a minor punishment under Rule 8(a) and on
this count also the elaborate enquiry is not necessary. The Learned Counsel also
relied on the Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.442 of 2011 dated
01.04.2013. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.22284, 22491, 22595 and 22760 of 2019
“On a perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
cited supra, we find that the facts involved therein and the
facts involved in the case on hand are totally different. The
Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the
position of stoppage of increments, and therefore, it was
rightly held that even though the proceedings have been
initiated under Rule 17[a], an enquiry under Rule 17[b]
will have to be followed mandatorily. Unfortunately, that is
not the case herein. In this case, an order of recovery has
been passed under Rule 8[5]. Admittedly, the order of
recovery is a minor punishment. Therefore, the respondent
has rightly followed the procedure contemplated under
Rule 17[a]. The other two decisions, relied upon by the
learned counsel for the appellant, which were passed by the
Single Bench, are not applicable to the facts of the case on
hand and they were rendered on different facts. Therefore,
we do not find any assistance from those two decisions”.
8. As per the counter, the respondents have obtained the written statement
against the petitioner from the said Abdul Rahman. But such statement was not
furnished to the petitioner. When such statement was not furnished to the
delinquent and directing the delinquent to submit explanation is violative of
principles of natural justice to the higher order. As rightly pointed out by the
Learned Counsel of the petitioner even for proceedings under Rule 17(a)
opportunity ought to be granted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.22284, 22491, 22595 and 22760 of 2019
9. In the counter, it has been stated that the petitioner has not submitted
any explanation. However, the petitioner submitted that in other three Writ
Petitions, the petitioner has not submitted any explanation, but has submitted
the explanation for the issue challenged in W.P.(MD)No.22284 of 2019. Since
the respondents have not even served the statement of the Forester, the
petitioner could not submit any explanation to the allegation. In such
circumstances, the respondents ought to have granted one more opportunity to
the petitioner either to submit a written explanation or ought to have summoned
the petitioner to conduct summary enquiry. Of course, after serving the copy of
the statement. Even in the case where the petitioner had submitted explanation,
the petitioner’s explanation was not considered by the respondent.
10. The respondents have passed four recovery orders covering the
period from December 2012 to 19.04.2013 to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- and it
will have serious impact on the terminal benefits. The petitioner was on the
verge of retirement that is on 28.02.2014. Hence the respondents ought to have
granted adequate opportunity. Since there is serious violation of principles of
natural justice, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.22284, 22491, 22595 and 22760 of 2019
11. Moreover, as per Section 142 of Tamil Nadu Forest Department
Code, 1984, any inspection ought to be carried out within 45 days from the date
of work. In the present case, the respondents have carried out the inspection
beyond the said period of limitation prescribed under the Code. Moreover,
when the inspection was carried out, the petitioner was not present to explain
his side of case. The petitioner was transferred from this place on 19.04.2013.
The respondents having obtained the statement from the Forester ought to have
obtained the statement from the petitioner as well. Hence, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the four impugned orders are liable to be quashed and
accordingly quashed.
12. The allegation on the petitioner is that after receiving the amount,
either the work was not carried out properly or was not carried out at all. Under
these circumstances, the case ought to be remitted back to the authorities for
enquiry or for modifying the punishment. Since the petitioner has already
retired from service as early as on 2014 itself, this Court in the interest of
justice, is imposing a punishment by directing the respondents to deduct a sum
of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) from the petitioner. The balance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.22284, 22491, 22595 and 22760 of 2019
amount recovered from the petitioner shall be returned to the petitioner. The
said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. In view of the above, the Writ Petitions are allowed to the extent as
stated supra. There shall be no order as to costs.
28.03.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Nsr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.22284, 22491, 22595 and 22760 of 2019
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Environment and Forest Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Panagal Malligai,
Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
3.The Chief Conservator of Forest Field Director,
Kalakad Mundathurai Tiger Reserve (Tiger Project),
Tirunelveli – 07.
4.The Deputy Director and Wild Life Warden,
Kalad Sanctuary,
Kalad,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.22284, 22491, 22595 and 22760 of 2019
S.SRIMATHY, J.
Nsr
W.P.(MD).Nos.22284, 22491, 22595 and 22760 of 2019
28.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
