IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 05.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR W.P.Nos.34000 and 34015 of 2006 G.Munusamy .. Petitioner in both the petitions. vs 1.The Conservator of Forests, Vellore Circle, Vellore, Kallakurichi. 2.The District Forest Officer, Tirupattur Division, Tirupattur, Vellore District. 3.Wild Life Warden, 259, Anna Salai, Chennai -6. ..Respondents in both the petitions PRAYER: Original Application No.9839 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench to call for the records relating to the orders of the first and second respondent in C.No.11293/96 dated 14.10.1998 and Pro.No.4016/96/A3 dated 3.11.1998 respectively and quash the same Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition. PRAYER: Original Application No.9921 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench to call for the records relating to the orders of the first and second respondent in C.No.11191/96 dated 12.10.1998 and Pro.No.4015/96/A3 dated 23.10.1998 respectively and quash the same 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, Govt. Advocate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R Original Application No.9839 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench to call for the records relating to the orders of the first and second respondent in C.No.11293/96 dated 14.10.1998 and Pro.No.4016/96/A3 dated 3.11.1998 respectively and quash the same. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, O.A was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition. Original Application No.9921 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench to call for the records relating to the orders of the first and second respondent in C.No.11191/96 dated 12.10.1998 and Pro.No.4015/96/A3 dated 23.10.1998 respectively and quash the same Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the O.A was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition. 2.The petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same. 3.The petitioner is a forest ranger of the enforcement wing. Two impugned orders dated 14.10.1998 & 3.11.1998 and 12.10.1998 & 23.10.1998 respectively have been passed for recovery of excess fuel consumed by the petitioner. According to the respondents, the petitioner had consumed excess fuel during the period mentioned in the impugned proceedings. The excess fuel has been calculated and ordered to be recovered from the salary. 4.The primary contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that without any notice, the order of recovery has been passed. Therefore, it is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The order does not contain any reason. In terms of G.O.Ms.No.248 Finance(Home.I)Dept. Dated 31.3.1995., the impugned proceedings have to be set aside. 5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.L.Chandrakumar and the learned Government Advocate Mr.B.Vijay for the respondents. 6.The impugned order on the face of it does not contain any reason. No show cause notice has been issued stating that the consumption of fuel is in excess. The case of the department is sought to be clarified in the counter affidavit and that cannot be so, in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court as follows: "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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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 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.The impugned proceedings is violative of Principles of Natural Justice as no notice has been issued to state the reason for recovery. In view of the above said reasons, the impugned proceedings are set aside. The writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. cla 1.The Conservator of Forests, Vellore Circle, Vellore,Kallakurichi. 2.The District Forest Officer, Tirupattur Division,Tirupattur, Vellore District. 3.Wild Life Warden,259, Anna Salai,Chennai -6. + 1 CC TO Spl. Govt., Pleader CC SR 7609 + 1 cc to Mr.L.Chandrakumar, CC SR 7560 + 1 cc to Spl. Govt., Pleader CC SR 7608 W.P.Nos.34000 and 34015 of 2006 RB (CO) RH (9.3.10) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/