1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29/3/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN Writ Petition (MD) No.1446 of 2011 & 1447 of 2011 1. S.Lakshmanan 2. R.Saminathan ... Petitioners in both the petitions Vs. 1. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Chennai 600 010. 2. The Senior Regional Manager Thanjavur Region Thanjavur. 3. The Assistant Manager Accounts Regional Office Thanjavur. ... Respondents in both the petitions Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.1446 of 2011: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.E10/38907/06 dated 30/8/2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to repay the sum of Rs.2,000/- which was deducted from the petitioners' salary in the month of November and December 2010. Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.1447 of 2011: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.42323/06/E10 dated 30/8/2010 and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.V. Karthikeyan For Respondents : Mr.R.Janakiramulu Spl.G.P. - - - - - https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 C O M M O N O R D E R These writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned orders passed by the second respondent dated 30/8/2010. 2. The petitioners are working as Quality Inspector and Assistant Quality Inspector respectively in the respondent Corporation. The respondent Corporation used to purchase paddy from the farmers from all over the State. During 2006 – 2007, when the petitioners were working in the Open Storage at Nadiyamman Kovil, Pattukottai, the paddy procured during Kuruvai cultivation was stored in that Open Storage. The second respondent made a spot inspection of the go-down, where the paddy was kept. While so, the second respondent caused a notice to explain why the petitioners shall not be held liable for the loss caused to the Corporation. That apart, from the salary of the petitioners, the amount was deducted. The petitioners challenging the impugned orders have come up with the present writ petitions. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners mainly contended that the order of recovery was passed against the petitioners without considering the explanation offered by the petitioners. Hence, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the impugned order dated 30/8/2010 is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioners are liable for the loss committed by them while procuring the paddy and storing the same. Hence, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners before taking action. The petitioners have given a reply which was not convincing and hence the impugned order of recovery came to be passed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 6. Admittedly, the petitioners were served with a show cause notice to explain why they shall not be held liable to the loss caused to the Corporation pertaining to the purchase of paddy and storing the same. The petitioners admittedly sent a reply denying the allegations made against them. While so, the impugned order of recovery came to be passed by the second respondent without even considering the reply filed by the petitioners. The order merely reads that reply sent by the petitioners is not convincing. Not only the explanation that has been offered by the petitioners were put forth in the order, but also the same was not considered at all. Thus, a non-speaking order has been passed by the second respondent without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7. In view of the above stated position, I am inclined to set aside the orders of the second respondent dated 30/8/2010 and the writ petitions stand allowed. It is needless to say that the respondents are at liberty to pass fresh orders, after considering the explanation offered by the petitioners and after hearing the petitioners. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Chennai 600 010. 2. The Senior Regional Manager Thanjavur Region Thanjavur. 3. The Assistant Manager Accounts Regional Office Thanjavur. +2 CCs to Mr.V.Karthikeyan, Advocate (SR.No.8439) +1 CC to Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Advocate (SR.No.6640) W.P.(MD)Nos.1446 and 1447 of 2011 29.3.2011 mvs NSV/6.4.11/3P/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/