IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 5.2.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.33694 of 2006 T.Dharmaraj. ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Director of Animal Husbandry, DMS Compound, Chennai-6. 2.The Regional Joint Director of Animal Husbandry, VOC Nagar, Thanjavur 613 001. ... Respondents Original Application No.9799 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench praying to call for records relating to proceedings of the second respondent made in Na.Ka.No.25980/F/97 dated 15.10.98 to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to settle all accrued benefits with interest at 24% per annum from the date on which the same fell due till the date of realisation. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition. For petitioner : Mr.L.Chandrakumar For respondents : Mr.B.Vijay, Government Advocate. ----- O R D E R Original Application No.9799 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench praying to call for records relating to proceedings of the second respondent made in Na.Ka.No.25980/F97 dated 15.10.98 to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to settle all accrued benefits with interest at 24% per annum from the date on which the same fell due till the date of realisation. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition. 2. The applicant/petitioner, was appointed as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in 1977 and was promoted as Assistant Veterinary Surgeon/Assistant Director, Orathanadu in the year 1997. It is stated that in the Hospital, there is a quarters attached to the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. According to the petitioner, quarters allotted to him was not for the Grade IV officers to which the petitioner was appointed. He did not take possession. There was no order of allotment. However, on 15.10.1998, second respondent Regional Joint Director of Animal Husbandry passed an order directing the recovery of Rs.14,612/- stating that it is the rent for the period from 31.3.97 to 30.9.98 and the said amount should be recovered from the pay. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 15.10.1998 has been passed without putting the petitioner on notice as to why the said amount is demanded by way of recovery. It is also violative of principles of natural justice inasmuch as no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to submit his explanation. The O.A. was admitted in the year 1998 and interim stay of recovery order was granted and it continues till date. 4. Heard Mr.B.Vijay, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. He pointed out the reply affidavit and stated that the petitioner should have used the quarters and, therefore, the recovery is in order. 5. Whatever be the reason, on the face the impugned order, a sum of Rs.14,612/- has been ordered to be recovered stating that it is the rent for the period from 31.3.1997 to 30.9.1998. It was not stated whether on what basis the recovery order has been passed. In any event, in the reply affidavit, the stand taken by the respondents is that a show cause notice was issued. But, however, the respondents are not able to produce any such document. The impugned order does not give any reason, however detailed reasons were set out in the reply affidavit. 6. It is trite law that the case of the respondents cannot be improved on the basis of the counter-affidavit or the written submissions vide Mohinder Singh Gill and another – v. - The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others AIR 1978 Supreme Court 851 and S.N.Mukherjee – v. - Union of India (1990)4 SCC 594. In para 8 of the decision in AIR 1978 SC 851 reads as follows:- "8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J., in Gordhandas Bhani (AIR 1952 SC 16)(at p.18): "Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself". Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older." Para 36 in (1990)4 SCC 594 reads thus:- "36. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ decision is subject to appeal, revision on judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage." 7. In such view of the matter, since the impugned proceedings is in violation of principles of natural justice and since no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to give his explanation to the demand and it does not state the reasons, the proceedings are liable to be set aside. Accordingly it is set aside. The respondents, however, are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, if there are reasons to do so. The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ts To 1. The Director of Animal Husbandry, DMS Compound, Chennai-6. 2. The Regional Joint Director of Animal Husbandry, VOC Nagar, Thanjavur 613 001. 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO 8137 1 cc To Mr.L.Chandrakumar, Advocate, SR.7157 W.P.No.33694 of 2006 JP(CO) sra 12.02.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/