IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.11.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN W.P. No.16398 of 2008 P.Ravichandran .. Petitioner vs. 1. The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. 2. The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Nagapattinam Region, Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District. ... Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the 1st respondent in Rc.No.QC3/95593/2007 dated 24.05.2008 confirming the order of recovery passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.05729/06/T1 dated 27.09.2007 and quash the said orders. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Manoj Kumar For Respondents : Mr.V.Selvanayagam O R D E R Heard Mr.P.Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Selvanayagam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Challenging the impugned order dated 24.05.2008 passed by the 1st respondent in Rc.No.QC3/95593/2007, confirming the order of recovery dated 27.09.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.05729/06/T1 and seeking to quash the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. According to the petitioner, he is working as Bill Clerk in the office of the Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Nagapattinam Region, Nagapattinam. Initially, he was appointed as a Trainee Bill Clerk on 01.02.1985. Thereafter, he was appointed as Time Scale Packer on 11.10.1990 and promoted as Bill https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Clerk on Time Scale of Pay in the year 1992. He was working continuously since then without any blemish whatsoever. While so, in July 2007, the Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Cuddalore Region, i.e. the 2nd respondent issued a Show Cause Notice in proceedings in Na.Ka.05729/06/T1 dated 09.07.2007 calling upon the petitioner to show cause with regard to the shortage of about 69 US Black Polythene bags. To the said notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 25.07.2007, specifically stating that he was not in charge and therefore not responsible for the shortage of Polythene bags in the Dead Stock Room. However, the 2nd respondent, without considering his explanation, issued an order dated 27.09.2007 directing recovery of a sum of Rs.33,584/- from the petitioner, stating that the explanation given by the petitioner is not acceptable. 3a. Aggrieved by the said order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Chennai – 10, the 1st respondent herein on 05.11.2007 stating that without considering his explanation, the 2nd respondent has ordered recovery in violation of the procedures followed in the Corporation. However, the 1st respondent rejected the petitioner's appeal in and by proceedings dated 24.05.2008 without considering his explanation or the grounds raised by him in the appeal. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this court. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that with regard to recovery, the 2nd respondent had deputed one Deputy Manager (A/c) from the Regional Office and based on the enquiry report, recovery was ordered. According to the 2nd respondent, In all the explanations, the petitioner requested to relieve him as he is not in charge of the godown. But, T.Sundaramoorthy, Assistant Quality Inspector was relieved from the godown on 10.06.2007 and till the Physical verification for the Quarter ending 30.06.2006, the petitioner alone was looking after the transactions in godown Nos.2,5 and 8. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that though the petitioner has submitted his explanation to the Show Cause Notice dated 09.07.2007 issued by the 2nd respondent, on 25.07.2007, without even conducting an enquiry, the 2nd respondent has proceeded to issue the order of recovery. Since the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity to defend his case, the order of recovery is liable to be set aside as it is against the principles of natural justice. 6. I have gone through the impugned order as well as the documents filed on behalf of the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner had given an explanation to the Show Cause Notice issued by the 2nd respondent, no enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was not given an opportunity to put forth his case, thereby, there is violation of the principles of natural justice. The application of the principles of natural justice is meant to assure that the party concerned has an opportunity of being heard on the principle of audi alteram partem, which means a party has a right of hearing if an action of authority would visit him with civil or pecuniary consequences. In the case on hand, though the petitioner has submitted an explanation to the 2nd respondent that he is not responsible for the alleged shortage of Stock, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has ordered recovery, which is against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of recovery is liable to be set aside. 8. Law is well settled in the case of imposition of punishment. The Supreme Court, while dealing with the composite order of punishment of stoppage of increment and recovery of loss, has laid down a proposition in a decision reported in (2007) 10 SCC 88 in the case of M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. and another vs. Jahan Khan that a regular enquiry must be held before punishing the respondent. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted hereunder : "11. Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that in the light of our interpretation of the aforenoted Regulations, the imposition of penalty vide composite order dated 19.12.1989, directing recovery of loss of Rs.16,903.41 and stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect, is a major penalty, clearly envisaging a regular enquiry before punishing the respondent. Since admittedly this procedure was not followed, the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that imposition of the impugned penalty without holding enquiry was illegal and without jurisdiction." 9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 24.05.2008 passed by the 1st respondent confirming the order of recovery dated 27.09.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondents for fresh consideration. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders by following the procedures contemplated under the Rules after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and holding an enquiry. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The Writ Petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.2 of 2008 is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar abe To : 1. The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. 2. The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Nagapattinam Region, Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District. 1 cc to Mr.P.Rajendran, Advocate, Sr.No.84990 1 cc to Mr.V.Selvanaayagam, Advocate, Sr.No.84762 Order in W.P.No.16398 of 2008 KSJ {CO} TP/5.1.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/