Madras High Court

D.Raghunathan vs The District Collector on 16 November, 2023

                                                                              W.P.(MD) No.1121 of 2017



                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                  DATED : 16.11.2023

                                                       CORAM

                                    THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

                                             W.P.(MD) No.1121 of 2017
                                                       and
                                         W.M.P.(MD) Nos.942 and 943 of 2017


                     D.Raghunathan                                                ... Petitioner

                                                         Vs.

                     1. The District Collector,
                        Thanjavur District,
                        Thanjavur.

                     2. K.Raju,
                        Superintendent,
                        District Rural Development Authority
                        Thanjavur.                                                ... Respondents


                     Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying

                     for issue of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the

                     proceedings of the first Respondent made in Na.Ka.No.3855/2016/Ka.4

                     dated 08.07.2016 and quash the same.

                     ___________
                     Page 1 of 12



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   W.P.(MD) No.1121 of 2017




                                    For Petitioner      :         Mr.M.Sureshkumar

                                    For Respondent      :         Mr. A. Kannan - for R1
                                                                  Additional Government Pleader

                                                                  Mr.V.Perumal - for R2

                                                            ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorari

to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first Respondent

made in Na.Ka.No.3855/2016/Ka.4, dated 08.07.2016 and quash the same.

2. Heard Mr.M.Sureshkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner,

Mr.A.Kannan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the

first respondent and Mr.V.Perumal, learned Counsel appearing for the

second respondent and perused the material available on record.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined the

services of the Government in the year 1990 and thereafter, by various

promotions, he became a Block Development Officer and joined at ___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.1121 of 2017

Thiruvaiyaru on 21.02.2015. The second respondent herein was holding the

post of Block Development Officer at Thiruvaiyaru Panchayat Union from

19.08.2010 to 20.02.2015. On 05.04.2005, there was an electrocution at

Kadambangudi Village. One Chinnaiyan @ Chandrasekaran, who was

returning from a fair price shop, fell down in the Mud road and kept his

hand in the wall of the Elementary School adjacent to the road. Due to

rainfall and short circuit, electricity has passed on in the wall which led to

Electrocution. The father of the said Chinnaiyan came and tried to rescue

his son, who also got electrocuted and died on the way to hospital.

4. The petitioner submits that the legal heirs of the deceased had

filed two suits in O.S.Nos.312 and 313 of 2010 before the Additional

Subordinate Court, Thanjavur and claimed compensation for the said

accident. Originally, the Electricity Board and the District Educational

Officer alone were arrayed as defendants and the Block Development

Officer, Thiruvaiyaru was made as sixth defendant by order, dated

14.09.2011 and summons were served to the second respondent. Even

though the second respondent received summons, he has not taken any steps

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.1121 of 2017

to contest the suits, nor contacted the Government Pleader or engaged any

other counsel to represent on behalf of the Block Development Officer,

Thiruvaiyaru. Hence, the suits were not contested by the Block

Development Officer. The Electricity Board and Education Department

contested the case and the Trial Court has awarded a sum of Rs.5,10,000/-

as compensation. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed Execution Petitions in

E.P.Nos.53 and 54 of 2015 and attachment was ordered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first

respondent ordered for payment of the decretal amount from the General

Funds of the Panchayat Union and subsequently, the first respondent, by the

impugned order dated 08.07.2016, directed all the Block Development

Officers, who were holding the office from 31.03.2005 to 21.02.2015 to

deposit a sum of Rs.4,82,892/-. The said sum was apportioned between 11

Block Development Officers, who were holding office in that particular

period. The petitioner was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.43,899/- by the

said order as he was also holding office in the said period. In the said

proceedings, the petitioner's name was also mentioned at Serial No.11. The

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.1121 of 2017

first respondent failed to consider that the petitioner had joined in the said

post on 21.02.2015 after the ex-parte judgment was made.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the first

respondent issued specific direction to deposit the decree amount on

humanitarian grounds to give quietus to the issue and the same was

deposited. At any rate, the petitioner is not responsible for the ex-parte

decree and consequential financial loss to the Government. In this regard,

the petitioner made a detailed explanation to the first respondent on

15.07.2016 by enclosing documents to support his stand and he had taken

all effective steps to defend the Department and that there is no lapse on his

part.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the second

respondent is the sole person for the above lapse in defending the case. He

has already approached this Court in W.P.(MD)No.18590 of 2016

challenging the recovery and the same is pending. Since the first

respondent passed the impugned order, without considering the detailed

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.1121 of 2017

explanation of the petitioner, the petitioner is before this Court.

8. Counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. No

counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent.

9. It is averred in the counter affidavit that in the year 2005, there

was an electrocution in Kadambangudi Village, in which, two persons died.

In this regard, two suits in O.S.Nos.312 and 313 of 2010 were filed before

the Additional Subordinate Court, Thanjavur. The suits were decreed ex-

parte on 05.08.2014 and a sum of R.4,82,892/- was awarded as

compensation. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed Execution Petitions in

E.P.Nos.53 and 54 of 2015 and attachment was ordered on 11.05.2016.

Only after the attachment order was passed by the Court, the Panchayat

Union came to know about the suits. However, in order to safeguard from

Execution Proceedings, the compensation amount was paid by the

Panchayat Union from Thiruvaiyaru Panchayat Union General Fund. Since

the concerned Block Development Officers worked in the relevant period

have committed dereliction of duty, which resulted in loss to the Panchayat

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.1121 of 2017

Union, the first respondent directed recovery of money from the Officers

who worked at the relevant period.

10. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the

first respondent submits that during the pendency of the recovery order,

dated 08.07.2016, the petitioner herein, who was holding the post of Block

Development Officer, Thiruvaiyaru, without considering the orders of the

first respondent, passed a separate order on his own vide proceedings in

Na.Ka.No.1094/2016/A2, dated 22.07.2016 to recover the entire

compensation amount from the second respondent herein. Aggrieved

against the said recovery order issued by the petitioner, the second

respondent filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.18590 of 2016 and this

Court passed an order to recover the amount of Rs.43,899/- from the salary

of the second respondent herein. A sum of Rs.43,899/- was fully recovered

from the second respondent along with four others, who were in service at

the time of passing of orders by the District Collector and the same was also

permitted vide order, dated 16.12.2016 passed in W.M.P(MD)No.13460 of

2016 by this Court.

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.1121 of 2017

11. Learned Additional Government Pleader further submits that

the petitioner is one among the 11 Block Development Officers on whom

the recovery orders were passed. Therefore, the impugned order is legally

sustainable and prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

12. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsels and

upon careful perusal of the material available on record, there is no dispute

with regard to the admitted facts in this case.

13. The main contention of the petitioner is that he joined in the

post of Block Development Officer, Thiruvaiyaru on 21.02.2015 only, much

after the date of ex-parte decree dated 05.08.2014 and hence, he cannot be

put into responsibility for the fault committed by the earlier officers, who

held the post of Block Development Officer, Thiruvaiyaru. Even in the

impugned proceedings dated 08.07.2016 of the first respondent, it is clearly

mentioned that the petitioner is working as Block Development Officer,

Thiruvaiyaru from 21.02.2015 to till the date of the impugned order. So, it

is clear that the petitioner was not working as Block Development Officer,

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.1121 of 2017

Thiruvaiyaru in the year 2010 when O.S.Nos.312 and 313 of 2010 were

filed before the Additional Subordinate Court, Thanjavur, which were

decreed ex-parte on 05.08.2014.

14. After passing ex-parte decree dated 05.08.2014, by the learned

Subordinate Court, Thanjavur, the plaintiffs therein filed execution petitions

in E.P.Nos.53 and 54 of 2015. In the said execution proceedings, summons

were served to the Block Development Officer, Thiruvaiyaru Panchayat

Union on 10.03.2015. Immediately on the next day, i.e., on 11.03.2015, the

petitioner, being the Block Development Officer, Thiruvaiyaru Panchayat

Union addressed a letter to the concerned learned Government Pleader to

appear in the execution proceedings. Subsequently, an attachment order

was passed in the execution proceedings on 11.05.2016. As per the

direction of the 1st respondent, the compensation amount was paid. As such,

it appears that as on the date of the ex-parte decree dated 05.08.2014, the

petitioner was not holding the post of Block Development Officer,

Thiruvaiyaru and immediately after receipt of the summons in the execution

proceedings, he took steps by addressing the learned Government Pleader to

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.1121 of 2017

contest the execution proceedings. In view of the same, in the considered

opinion of this Court, there is no fault on the part of the petitioner in the

entire episode, i.e., from the date of unfortunate incident of electrocution at

Kadambangudi Village on 05.04.2005 to till the date of the attachment order

passed in the execution proceedings. The 1st respondent, without

considering all these aspects, in a routine way, passed the impugned order.

15. One more issue to be noted is that before issuing the

impugned proceedings dated 08.07.2016, by the 1st respondent, no notice

was issued to the petitioner calling for his explanation. As and when the 1st

respondent passed the order of recovery of some amount from the petitioner,

the petitioner ought to have been put on notice to putforth his case before

the 1st respondent.

16. Accordingly, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order

issued is against to the principles of natural justice and as such, it is not

sustainable under law and accordingly, liable to be set aside.

___________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.1121 of 2017

17. For the above mentioned reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed

with the following directions:

i. The impugned order in Na.Ka.No.3855/2016/Ka.4, dated 08.07.2016

of the Respondent No.1 is hereby set aside; and

ii. The Respondent No.1 shall return the amount of Rs.43,899/-, which

was recovered from the petitioner within a period of four weeks from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the petitioner.