1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12/08/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD) No.9045 of 2011 P.Murugan ... Petitioner Vs. The Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Chief Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. ... Respondent Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent relating to G.O.No.206, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 27.05.2011 and quash the portion relating to the recovery of a sum of Rs.33,348/- alone and consequently, direct the respondent to send the pension proposals to the appropriate authority within a stipulated time. For petitioner .. Mr.S.Visvalingam For respondent .. Mr.B.Pugalenthi, Special Government Pleader ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash G.O.No.206, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 27.05.2011, in so far as the portion relating to the recovery of a sum of Rs.33,348/- alone and consequently, to direct the respondent to send the pension proposals to the appropriate authority within a stipulated time. 2. Facts leading to the writ petition are as follows; The petitioner was recruited through TNPSC in the year 1980 and joined duty on 10.09.1980 as Junior Assistant in Panchayat Union, Muthukulathur. He was promoted as Assistant in the year 1985, Extension Officer in the year 1995, Deputy Block Development Officer in the year 2000, Panchayat Union Commissioner (BD) in the year 2002 and Assistant Director of Panchayat, Sivagangai in the year 2007 and lastly, he was serving as Assistant Project Officer (DWCRA), in the office of the District Rural Development Agency, Pudukkottai. While so, the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, vide proceedings in Memo No.V- 2/26263/2009, dated 15.05.2009, i.e., two weeks before the date of his superannuation, framed charges relating to the objections of the Local Fund Audit, which took place in the year 1995. The petitioner has submitted his explanation on 22.07.2009. The enquiry officer has conducted enquiry and sent his report. The petitioner has submitted his further representation on the report of the enquiry officer on 12.08.2010. The Government have passed the impugned orders, dated 27.05.2011, ordering that a sum of Rs.100/- to be recovered from the monthly pension of the petitioner for a period of six months, besides https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 ordering to recover a sum of Rs.33,348/- from the D.C.R.G. to be sanctioned. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, has submitted a report, dated 20.08.2010, to the Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Chennai, stating that the petitioner was not in service at Mandapam Panchayat Union, during the period a loss of a sum Rs.33,348/- is said to have been suffered, for non-recovery of advance amount from the employees and that no such recovery was pending during the tenure of the petitioner and though the same has been forwarded to the Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Depatment, Chennai, by the Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Chennai, in his letter No.76089/09, dated 24.08.2010, the same has not been considered and discussed in the impugned order. According to the petitioner, the Regional Deputy Director of Local Fund Audit, Madurai, has specifically stated in his reports dated 15.05.2009, 19.05.2009, 29.06.2009 and 14.07.2009 respectively that the objections raised during the tenure of the petitioner has been settled and as such, it can be seen that except charge No.6, other charges have already been settled and that they have been deleted from the list of objections. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the points raised by the petitioner before the enquiry officer and his further representation, dated 12.08.2010 were not at all considered, discussed and decided in the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order is a non-speaking order and without any reasoning. According to the petitioner, he has agreed to the provisional conclusion arrived at for a monthly recovery of Rs.100/- for a period of six months and was hoping that he would get pension and other retirement benefits, without further loss of time. He has also submitted that the recovery of Rs.33,348/- ordered by the respondent alone is liable to be set aside, as he was not responsible for the abovesaid loss. 4. Mr.B.Pugalenthi, learned Special Government Pleader has submitted that the petitioner has been given reasonable opportunity to defend the charges framed against him and that he has also availed the same. After going through the explanations offered by the petitioner and the report of the enquiry officer, the impugned is passed by the respondent and that there is no illegality in the impugned order. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Though the impugned order is assailed on merits, a perusal of the same shows that the Government, after extracting the details of the enquiry officer's report and the further representation of the writ petitioner, dated 12.08.2010, has passed the order, in a cryptic manner, by merely recording that the charges as proved. It is well settled in a catena of decisions that the authority, while imposing punishment on delinquent, has to record reasons for arriving at such conclusion. Mere recording of events does not reflect application of mind. What is reflected in the impugned order is only conclusion and there is no reason for arriving at such conclusion. Useful reference can be made to some of the decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7. In Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation v. S.Sampath reported in 2005 (1) LW 795, a Division Bench of this Court, while testing the correctness of an order of recovery of pay from the suspended employee, alleged to have involved in causing shortage of paddy, held that the impugned order therein was only conclusions and did not contain any reasons. While saying so, the Division Bench has considered a decision made in Union of India v. M.L.Capoor reported in AIR 1974 SC 87, where the Apex Court has explained the difference between "reasons and conclusions". At paragraph 28, the Supreme Court in the above reported judgment, observed as follows: "Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable." 8. Yet another Constitutional Bench judgment of the Apex Court in S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of India reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984, was also considered by the Division Bench. In the above reported judgment, at Paragraph 35, the Supreme Court has observed that 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. It is not necessary that the reasons should be as elaborate like decision rendered by a Court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. However, what is necessary is that the reason should be clear and explicit, so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. 9. Following the above said decisions and for the reasons stated supra, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order, which is laconic in nature and accordingly, set aside. However, liberty is given to the first respondent to pass a detailed speaking order, by considering the defence put forth by the writ petitioner, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. The Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Writs) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To The Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Chief Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. +1 CC to Special Government Pleader (SR.No.27755) W.P.(MD) No.9045 of 2011 gcg 12.08.2011 NSV/19.9.11/3P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/