S.Sethuraman, v. The Director Of Treasuries

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.03.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU W.P.NO.3445 OF 2017 AND W.M.P.NOS.3418 AND 27302 OF 2017 S.Sethuraman

...Petitioner

Vs 1.The Director of Treasuries Accounts Panagal Maligai, Chennai - 15.

2.The Treasury Officer District Treasury Office, Villupuram District, Villupuram.

...Respondents

Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the Second Respondent dated 18.07.2016 made in Na. Ka. 4060/2016/E2 quash the same and consequently directing the Respondents to refund the deductions already made in the pension and pay the revised pension at Rs. 10,500/-.

For Petitioner :

Mr.M.Devaraj For Respondents :

Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

Heard Mr. M.Devaraj, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Vadivelu Deenadayalan, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

2. The Writ Petition challenges the Proceedings No. Na. Ka. 4060/2016/E2 dated 18.07.2016 passed by the Second Respondent in which the Petitioner has been informed that a sum of Rs. 2,38,000/- excessively paid to him would be recovered in 20 installments of Rs. 11,500/- and the last installment of Rs. 8,600/- from his monthly pension.

3. This Court at the time of admission on 13.02.2017 had passed the following self-explanatory order:- "

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is a pensioner, aged about 75 years and without putting him on notice whatsoever, the impugned order of recovery came to be passed and further add that the matter in issue is squarely covered by the judgment reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 [State of Punjab and Haryana -vs- Rafiq Maish (White Washer)] and prays for appropriate orders.

2.

Mr. K.Dhananjayan, Learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the Respondents and prays for time to get instructions.

3.

Call on 13.03.2017 for order. Till then, there shall be an order of interim stay."

4. It is trite law that any administrative action which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice, meaning thereby that the person concerned must be informed of the case with supporting evidence against him and he must be given a fair opportunity to meet the case before an adverse decision is taken. The Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O. Ms. No. 286, Finance (Pension) Department dated 28.08.2018 after referring to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab -vs- Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) [(2015) 4 SCC 334], has issued detailed instructions providing the manner in which any excess amount paid to Government Servants/Pensioners/Family Pensioners would have to be made.

5. There is nothing to show that either in the impugned order or in the Counter-Affidavit filed by the Second Respondent that before the excess payment claimed to have been made was effected, any show cause notice had been issued to the Petitioner calling for an explanation from him with supporting materials relied in that regard. Such incurable flaw in decision making by the Respondents is in violation of the principles of natural justice and would vitiate the impugned order. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Second Respondent is set aside leaving it open to the concerned authorities to appropriately deal with the matter following due process. It shall be incumbent upon the concerned authorities to issue show cause notice to the Petitioner along with workingsheet of the calculation for the excess payment claimed to have been made to him and after affording full opportunity of personal hearing to him and considering each of the objections that may be raised by him, a reasoned order shall be passed on

merits and in accordance with law following the procedure laid down in the instructions in G.O. Ms. No. 286, Finance (Pension) Department dated 28.08.2018 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, uninhibited and uninfluenced by the earlier order passed in the matter, and the decision taken shall be communicated to the Petitioner under written acknowledgement.

6. In the event of the concerned authorities failing to initiate such proceedings within 31.07.2022, the amount so far recovered from the Petitioner shall be refunded to him under written acknowledgment and report in that regard shall be filed before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. In fine, the Writ Petition is ordered on the aforesaid terms. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar kv To 1.The Director of Treasuries Accounts Panagal Maligai, Chennai - 15.

2.The Treasury Officer District Treasury Office, Villupuram District, Villupuram.

Copy To The Registrar (Judicial), Madras High Court, Chennai - 600 104.

+1cc to Mr.M.Devaraj, Advocate Sr.No.19871 +1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.No.20374 W.P.No.3445 of 2017 NR(CO) KM(09/06/2022)