IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.04.2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN Writ Petition No.25774 of 2007 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 K.Kamalanabhan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 2.The Joint Director of Agriculture, Kancheepuram. 3.The Assistant Director of Agriculture, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. 4.The Accountant General (A & E), No.261, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-18. ... Respondents Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings No.Se.Mu.Order No.A/370/99 dated 21.12.2006 passed by the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Sriperumbudur, the third respondent herein in ordering recovery to the tune of Rs.55,957/- and the consequential pension proposal sent to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kancheepuram in Lr.No.A2/17191/04 dated 11.07.2007 as far as the portion of recovery is concerned in directing the fourth respondent to recover a sum of Rs.1,60,056.00 quash the same and forbear the respondents from recovering the said sum from the petitioner in any manner. For Petitioner : Ms.G.Sridevi For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramesh, Addl. Govt. Pleader. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. Challenging the order of the third respondent dated 21.12.2006 in ordering recovery of a sum of Rs.55,957/- and the consequential Pension Proposal sent to the Joint Director of Agriculture, dated 11.07.2007 in so far as the portion of recovery is concerned in directing the fourth respondent to recover a sum of Rs.1,60,056/-, the petitioner had laid the present writ petition. 4. The short facts which led to the filing of the present writ petition as put forth by the petitioner in his affidavit in support of the writ petition are as follows:- The petitioner is a retired Assistant in the Agriculture Department. On attaining the age of superannuation, he has retired on 31.05.1997. However, he was suspended and not allowed to retire on attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, he has been permitted to retire by communication dated 18.04.2005. Thereafter, he was issued with a memo by the Joint Director of Agriculture dated 20.10.2006 alleging certain irregularities committed by him when he was working in the department. He gave his reply to the memo on 01.11.2006 denying the irregularities. While so, the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Sriperumbudur, by his proceedings dated 21.12.2006, issued an order of recovery for a sum of Rs.55,957/- to be recovered from his pensionary benefits in one instalment. Immediately, the petitioner gave a representation to the third respondent stating that the alleged charges were already dropped by the higher officials. 5. The further case of the petitioner is that the second respondent had sent a communication to the fourth respondent directing him to recover a sum of Rs.1,60,056/- from his Death cum Retirement Gratuity entirely and the balance left out to be recovered from the arrears of pension payable every month. Immediately, the petitioner requested the second respondent to supply the documents regarding the details of the arrears. The details of arrears were related to the incident of the year 1985 – 87. Since the alleged irregularities have been dropped earlier, he gave a representation on 16.07.2007 and 19.07.2007 to respondents 2 to 4 to drop the recovery proceedings. But, however, the same has not been done by the respondents. Hence, challenging the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition for the reliefs set out earlier. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. Counter affidavit has not been filed denying the various allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 8. I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the second and third respondents for the following reasons:- (a) The alleged irregularities are of the years 1985-86, 1986- 87. Now, after twenty three years, there will not be any document of proof on the side of the respondents to prove the alleged irregularities on the part of the petitioner. Now, if the parties are allowed to proceed after considerable time, there will be no useful purpose. (b) In respect of the alleged irregularities, already proceedings have been dropped and the same has not been taken note of by the third respondent while passing the present impugned proceedings. (c) The petitioner was allowed to retire by proceedings dated 18.04.2005 and now after his retirement, no charge can be framed and no recovery could be made against him. (d) Even assuming certain irregularities have been committed by the petitioner, the respondents can proceed against the petitioner only after due notice to the petitioner and after holding enquiry. But, unfortunately, before the order of recovery made against the petitioner, the expected procedure have not been followed. 9. In view of the reasons stated above, I am inclined to set aside the impugned orders of the second and third respondents dated 11.07.2007 and 21.12.2006 respectively. 10. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected petitions are closed. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sbi To 1.The Director of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 2.The Joint Director of Agriculture, Kancheepuram. 3.The Assistant Director of Agriculture, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. 4.The Accountant General (A & E), No.261, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-18. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.22739 +1 cc To M/s.G.Sridevichandran, Advocate, SR.22127 W.P.No.25774 of 2007 akr [co] gkg/25.4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/