IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.06.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NO.4914 of 2010 V.Ganesan .. Petitioner Vs. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., rep. By its Managing Director, No.42, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010 .. Respondent This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondent corporation in connection with its proceedings Ref.AE14/91171/07 dated 07.03.2009 and to quash the same and to direct the respondent corporation to repay the petitioner the recovered amount relating to the 91 recovery cases referred to in the impugned proceedings with interest. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Prakash, SC for Mr.Sudalaikannu For Respondent : Mr.Selvavinayagam ORDER This peculiar writ petition is filed by the petitioner after his retirement from the post of Quality Inspector in the respondent Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation (for short TNCSC). In the writ petition, the challenge is to the proceedings, dated 7.3.2009 issued by the respondent and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to respondent corporation to repay the petitioner the recovered amounts relating to 91 recovery cases referred to in the impugned proceedings. 2.Earlier a writ petition (W.P.No.12643 of 2008) was filed by the General Secretary of the Trade union with registration No.325, seeking for a direction to dispose of the representation, dated 30.4.2008 relating to the case of the petitioner, who was by then retired i.e. 31.5.2008. This Court by an order, dated 20.5.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ directed the said representation to be disposed of and the present petitioner was also given a liberty to send further representation. 3.Accordingly, the petitioner sent a further representation, dated 27.5.2008. On the representation, the Regional Managers, Salem and Dharmapuri were asked to send their comments. It was found that there were 41 disciplinary cases against the petitioner, in which 11 resulted in severe warning, 9 resulted in censure and 21 cases resulted in punishment of stoppage of increments. Of the 21 cases of stoppage of increments, no appeal was preferred in 15 cases and in the balance 6 cases, appeals were preferred and rejected by the appellate authority. In respect of 91 recovery cases, necessary show cause notices were issued and after getting explanations, individual recovery orders were passed. In fact, in his representation, the petitioner requested cancellation of 132 cases and also to give promotion on par with one Kumararaja with seniority and monetary benefits. 4.Though the petitioner raised a contention that punishments were given to victimize him for his trade union activities, he was informed by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation that the Service Regulations provided for recovery from pay either whole or in part towards pecuniary loss caused by any individual. The loss caused by the petitioner related to storage loss and transit loss. Appropriate show cause notices were issued and after getting explanations, punishments were imposed. Since necessary procedures have been followed, the case of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 5.When the matter came up on 10.3.2010, the counsel for the petitioner was directed to produce the copies of the penalty orders given to the petitioner. After taking several adjournments, the petitioner filed a consolidated typed set on 19.3.2010, containing numerous penalty orders. From which it can be seen that the earliest order was passed during July, 1987 and the latest order was in May, 2008. For each of the order, there was show cause notice. In all those orders it was also indicated that as per the service regulations, appeal also lies to the Managing Director of the Corporation. Nothing prevented the petitioner from challenging each of the order before the appellate authority. If he had filed he could have moved appropriate court for relief. The petitioner cannot rake up matters which were 22 years old. By making the trade union to send representation during April, 2008, he sought for its disposal, without explaining the conduct of the petitioner in not challenging those orders during the period when he was in service of the Corporation. Even before this court it is only a reply given by the corporation which is under challenge and there was no challenge to any of the 91 individual punishment orders enclosed in the typed set. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6.Though the learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Prakash contended that such consolidated writ petition is maintainable and the power of the court is very wide, this court is unable to entertain this writ petition. By sending belated representation, the petitioner cannot revive stale or dead cause of action. 7.In this context, it is necessary to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. M.K.Sarkar reported in 2010 (2) SCC 59. In paragraphs 14 to 16, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "14.The order of the Tribunal allowing the first application of respondent without examining the merits, and directing the appellants to consider his representation has given rise to unnecessary litigation and avoidable complications. The ill- effects of such directions have been considered by this Court in C.Jacob V. Director of Geology and Mining:(SCC pp.122-23, para 9) "9.The courts/tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly, they assume that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representation does not involve any 'decision' on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realise the consequences of such a direction to 'consider'. If the representation is considered and accepted, the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to 'consider'. If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain such applications/petitions ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation, and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets obliterated or ignored." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 15.When a belated representation in regard to a "stale" or "dead" issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the "dead" issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches. 16.A court or tribunal, before directing "consideration" of a claim or representation should examine whether the claim or representation is with reference to a "live" issue or whether it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue. If it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue or dispute, the court/tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration. If the court or tribunal deciding to direct "consideration" without itself examining the merits, it should make it clear that such consideration will be without prejudice to any contention relating to limitation or delay and laches. Even if the court does not expressly say so, that would be the legal position and effect." (Emphasis added) 8.Apart from that, even in the present writ petition, there is no challenge to any of the recovery orders and it is too late for the petitioner to come to this court after his retirement to challenge the punishments which were given to him during his service. 9.In the light of the above, the writ petition is misconceived. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar vvk https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., No.42, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010 + 1 CC to Mr.K.Sudalai kannu,Advocate,SR.40725 W.P.NO.4914 OF 2010 VSV(CO) EM/16.6.10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/