Madras High Court
S.Dhanasekaran vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 18 December, 2012
Author: K.Ravichandrabaabu
Bench: K.Ravichandrabaabu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18/12/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P(MD)No.11856 of 2008 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 S.Dhanasekaran ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Additional Secretary & Director of Survey And Settlement, Survey House, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. ... Respondents Prayer Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent relating to G.O.(ID)No.141 Revenue (Survey3(1) Department, dated 25.03.2010 and quash the same and direct the respondents to make refund of the amount so far recovered in one lump sum within a specified time frame. [Prayer amended as per order, dated 28.11.2012 in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012] !For Petitioner ... Mr.S.Visvalingam ^For Respondents ... Mr.S.Kumar Additional Government Pleader :ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the first respondent made in GO(ID)No.141, Revenue Department, dated 25.03.2010, whereby a recovery of a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month, was ordered from the pension payable to the petitioner, permanently.
2.The case of the petitioner is that he was serving as Deputy Inspector of Survey in the Taluk Office, Tiruvadanai. He was allowed to retire on 30.06.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation without detrimental to the charges pending against him under Rule 17-b of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. A charge was framed against the petitioner on 04.04.2006 by the Assistant Director of Survey and Settlement, Sivagangai, with reference to certain entries made in the revenue records in respect of T.S.No.171/1 of Karaikudi town. According to the petitioner, those entries were made by the petitioner only in pursuant to the earlier proceedings issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, dated 28.08.1995 and therefore, the petitioner cannot be found fault with. Pursuant to the enquiry conducted, a report was filed by the Enquiry Officer, wherein all the charges levelled against the petitioner were found to be proved. Thereafter, the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation. After the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the present impugned order came to be passed by the first respondent.
3.The respondents filed a counter affidavit and supported the impugned order.
4.It is the case of the respondents that as the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved, the first respondent, the competent authority passed the final order.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a perusal of the impugned order would only show that there is no application of mind by the first respondent to the rival contention of the parties and the same has been passed based on the opinion given by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.
6.The learned counsel also submitted that the other officials, viz., the Tasildhar, Special Tasildhar, and Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records were not proceeded against, and therefore, the action of the respondents amounts to discrimination and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
7.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved by the Enquiry Officer and he had also submitted his report. The first respondent considering the said report as well as the explanation submitted by the petitioner, passed the impugned order with total application of mind and therefore, the same cannot be found fault with.
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
9.A perusal of the impugned order passed by the first respondent, dated 25.03.2007 shows that except by extracting the charges, the explanation given by the petitioner, the findings of the Enquiry Officer and further explanation given by the petitioner, there is no independent finding by application of mind of the first respondent to the facts and circumstances of the case for arriving at a conclusion to impose the punishment on the petitioner.
10.No doubt, at para 4 of the impugned order, the first respondent has stated that he has come to the conclusion based on the above said documents. In my considered view, such statement could be viewed only as a general observation and cannot be treated as a specific finding by application of mind to the specific allegations and denials in respect of each charge. The first respondent, being the punishing authority, has to necessarily discuss about each charge and come to a specific and independent finding before imposing the punishment. Such independent application of mind is totally absent in the order passed by the 4th respondent and on the other hand, it is seen that the impugned order came to be passed based on the opinion given by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The punishing authority, though entitled to consider the opinion given by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as well as the report given by the Enquiry Officer, he cannot pass the order of punishment simply by extracting their opinion or findings without giving his specific and independent finding by considering all the materials placed before him. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is not a well considered order and in effect, it is only a non-speaking order. Therefore, without going into other merits of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for considering the matter afresh and pass orders by applying his independent mind to the facts and circumstances of the case on merits and in accordances with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11.The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
er To,
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Additional Secretary & Director of Survey And Settlement, Survey House, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
3.The Additional Government Pleader, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.