1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 3/8/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR Writ Petition (MD)Nos.8584 and 8585 of 2011 R. Ramaiah ...Petitioner in both the petitions. Vs 1. The Accountant General Accountant General Office Teynampet Chennai 18. 2. The Superintendent of Police District Police Office Virudhunagar District. ... First and second respondents in both the petitions. 3. The Sub-Treasury Officer Srivilliputtur Virudhunagar District. ... Third respondent in W.P.(MD) No.8585 of 2011 Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writs of Certiorari to call for the records pursuant to the order passed by the second respondent in C.No.L4/26702/2011 D.O.No.1394/2011 and C.No.H1/Pen.59/2010 dated 6/6/2011 and 23/6/2011 respectively and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Subash Babu For Respondents : Mr.P.Gunasekaran for R.1. Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen AGP for R.2 and R.3. C O M M O N O R D E R Pursuant to an order re-fixing the date of upgradation, the time scale applicable to the post of Sub-Inspector has been revised without any notice and consequently, a sum of Rs.1,08,262/- is sought to be recovered. The action of the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District is mainly assailed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, that any order of recovery involves civil consequences and that in such circumstances, the person aggrieved ought to have been put on notice to put forth his contentions, regarding the entitlement of appropriate scale of pay. The impugned orders do not reflect that the petitioner had been provided with any show cause notice. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. In view of the above, Mr.P.Gunasekaran for the first respondent and Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, Additional Government Pleader for the second respondent were put on notice and fairly submitted that the order impugned does not disclose, adherence to the principles of natural justice. This Court in (a).P.ARUMUGAM Vs. REGISTRAR, TAMIL UNIVERSITY, THANJAVUR reported in (2006) 3 MLJ – 1025 and (b).S.A.KANTHIMATHI Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, MADRAS AND OTHERS reported in (2006) 1 MLJ – 695 has held that no recovery can be done without any notice. 3. In view of the above and on the facts and materials, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the second respondent. 4. Setting aside of the impugned order would not preclude the second respondent from issuing a show cause notice for refixation of scale of pay applicable to the petitioner. On receipt of any notice, the petitioner shall put forth his claim for entitlement and objections. Thereafter, the second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. The exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. These writ petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Accountant General Accountant General Office Teynampet Chennai 18. 2. The Superintendent of Police District Police Office Virudhunagar District. 3. The Sub-Treasury Officer Srivilliputtur, Virudhunagar District. +2cc to Mr.M.Subash Babu, Advocate, SR.Nos.26045 and 26046 +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No.26113 W.P.(MD)Nos.8584 and 8585 of 2011 3/8/2011 mvs/SMA/4.8.2011/7C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/