Madras High Court
The District Collector vs M.Eganathan on 17 July, 2014
Author: N.Paul Vasanthakumar
Bench: N.Paul Vasanthakumar, K.Ravichandrabaabu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.07.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU Writ Appeal No.938 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 The District Collector, Collectorate, Villupuram District, Villupuram. ... Appellant Vs M.Eganathan ... Respondent Prayer:- Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order, dated 16.07.2013, made in W.P.No.6018 of 2008. For Appellant :Mrs.A.Sri Jayanthi, Spl. Govt. Pleader. For Respondents :Mr.R.Venkatavarathan for M/s.C.Uma J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR,J.) This writ appeal is filed against the order made in W.P.No.6018 of 2008, dated 16.07.2013, wherein the respondent had challenged the order of dismissal dated 04.11.1994. The said order was not communicated to the respondent/writ petitioner initially and pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.16852 of 2007, by order dated 04.06.2007, it was communicated to the writ petitioner. On receipt of the said order of dismissal, W.P.No.6018 of 2008 has been filed by the respondent, who served as a Noon Meal Organiser, contending that he was dismissed from service on the ground that there was audit objection in respect of a sum of Rs.22,548/- and in spite of giving direction to the respondent, the same was not paid and he was dismissed from service. It is not in dispute that before passing the order of dismissal, no charge memo or opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent by conducting enquiry.
2.Mr.R.Venkatavarathan, learned counsel, takes notice for the respondent.
3.In the decision reported in Periannan,G. v. The Government of Tamil Nadu [2007 (3) CTC 806], rendered by one of us (N.Paul Vasanthakumar, J.), the issue regarding dismissal of Noon Meal Organiser without any notice or framing of charge or conducting any enquiry was considered and it has been held that Noon Meal Organiser post is a civil post of the State Government, as the salary is being paid from the Government funds and hence, the person who is holding the said post is entitled to protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
4.Admittedly, in the present case, the said procedures have not been followed while dismissing the respondent from service by the appellant. The learned single Judge, therefore, set aside the order of removal from service and directed re-instatement of the respondent with 50% backwages with continuity of service and also N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR,J.
And K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J.
granted liberty to the appellant to recover the sum of Rs.22,548/- from the 50% of arrears of backwages payable to the respondent.
5.We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge, as the amount, which was ordered to be recovered based on the audit objection, being ordered to be adjusted by the appellant from the backwages ordered to be paid.
6.In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. The appellant is directed to comply with the order passed by the learned single Judge within a period of four weeks from today.
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No (N.P.V.,J) (K.R.C.B.,J)
17.07.2014
Note:
Issue Order Copy on 18.07.2014
bs
W.A.No.938 of 2014