1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.03.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. ARUMUGHASWAMY W.A. (MD) No.302 of 2011 and M.P. (MD) No.1 of 2011 1 The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts Chennai 600 015 2 The District Treasury Officer Dindigul District, Dindigul. Appellants vs. R. Manimuthu Respondent Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 05.08.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P. (MD) No.971 of 2008. Prayer in WP(MD)No.971 of 2008:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent relating to R.C. No.18148/07/N-2 dated 20.4.2007 and quash the paragraph (3) alone of the impugned proceedings relating to the withholding of the D.C.R.G of the petitioner and consequently direct the respondents to make payment of Rs.77,530/- which was hold in the D.C.R.G of the petitioner within a specified time frame. For appellant : Mr. R. Janakiramulu Spl. Govt. Pleader For respondent : Mr. N. Kalidoss JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. SUGUNA, J.) This writ appeal is filed as against the order dated 05.08.2009 passed in W.P. (MD) No.971 of 2008. 2. The above said writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 20.04.2007 whereby orders were issued to withhold an amount of Rs.77,530/- from the DCRG of the respondent/writ petitioner. 3. The case of the appellants is that the respondent/writ petitioner has ordered for over-payment of DCRG as well as pension and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the total excess payment is to the tune of Rs.2,39,117/-; for the mistake committed by the respondent/writ petitioner, a disciplinary proceedings was initiated as against him and the punishment of stoppage of increment for one month with cumulative effect was imposed on him; apart from this, the respondent/writ petitioner had also reached the age of superannuation and he was also permitted to retire from service with effect from 30.04.2007; prior to his retirement, the impugned order dated 20.04.2007 was issued to withhold the above said amount from the DCRG; however, since already recovery proceedings have been initiated as against an individual by name Perumal to whom excess payment has been made, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition; challenging the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal is filed. 4. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, in the enquiry conducted, the respondent/writ petitioner has admitted the alleged over-payment, consequently, the loss suffered by the Government has to be recovered from the respondent/writ petitioner; besides, due to the commission and omission committed by the respondent/writ petitioner, when the Government has incurred loss, certainly, the same has to be recovered from the respondent/writ petitioner; though recovery proceedings have been initiated as against the said Perumal to whom that over-payment has been made, on the completion of the recovery proceedings, the amount which has been withheld, will also be released. Based on this, the learned Special Government Pleader has submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge has to be set aside and the writ appeal has to be allowed. 5. But, admittedly, for the said commission and omission committed by the respondent/writ petitioner, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated as against him and in the said disciplinary proceedings, the punishment imposed is only stoppage of increment for one month with cumulative effect and no recovery has been ordered. Apart from this, for the said loss, recovery proceedings has been initiated as against the individual to whom the excess payment has been made and as per the averment in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, recovery proceedings is also continuing, even now. Apart from this, as per the stand of the respondent/writ petitioner, so far, a sum of Rs.84,000/- has been recovered and the total amount to be recovered is Rs.2 lakhs and odd. Since recovery proceedings have been initiated as against the person to whom excess payment has been made and since disciplinary proceedings as against the respondent/writ petitioner has also been initiated and since an order of mere stoppage of increment for one month with cumulative effect has also been passed and when there is no order with regard to the recovery of alleged loss to the Government, we are of the considered view that the order of the learned Single Judge is in accordance with the rules and as such, we do not find any infirmity in the same. Hence, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1 The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts Chennai 600 015 2 The District Treasury Officer Dindigul District, Dindigul + 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.7988 + 1 cc to Mr.S.Visvalingam, Advocate, SR No.7651 W.A. (MD) No.302 of 2011 23.03.2011 cad RJ/25.5.11 3p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/