← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/12163/2016dismissed

R.Saratha v. The District Collector

2016-07-12Honourable Mr Justice T.Raja3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.07.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P(MD).No.12163 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD).No.9260 of 2016 **** R.Saratha

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

2.The District Child Development Project Office, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

3.The Child Development Project Officer, Melpuram, Kanyakumari District.

...Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 23.06.2016 in No.1186/A3/2014, and quash the same.

For petitioner : Mr.R.Vijayakumar For Respondents : Mr.G.Muthukannan Government Advocate

ORDER

Mrs.R.Saratha, challenges the impugned order, dated 23.06.2016, on the ground that the second respondent wrongly issued a direction to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,211/- based on the initial Inspection Report and a copy of the same was not served on her.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the correctness of the Inspection Report itself is questioned in the disciplinary proceedings, the present impugned order, cannot be given effect to, by the respondents. By not permitting the petitioner to take copies of the Inspection Report, the respondents violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 23.06.2016, may be quashed. 3.

Per contra, learned Government Advocate submitted that only after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned order was passed and therefore, the same need not be interfered with.

4.

It is seen that originally, the petitioner challenged the order of suspension through W.P.(MD).No.12643 of 2014, wherein, this Court, by an order, dated 04.08.2014, had directed the first respondent therein to consider the explanation given by the petitioner and dispose of the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice as to why she should not be removed from the service. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred another Writ Petition in W.P.(MD). No.2348 of 2015, dated 25.02.2015, on the ground that without conducting an enquiry into the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the respondents were trying to take action against her.

This Court, after considering the plea, was pleased to set aside the notice issued by the respondents therein and remitted the matter back to the second respondent to proceed from the stage of receipt of the explanation given by the petitioner and to conduct the departmental proceedings, in accordance with law. Thereafter, the second respondent has passed the present impugned order dated 23.06.2016. Challenging the same, the petitioner has once again approached this Court, questioning the action of the second respondent in recovering the alleged loss caused to the respondents.

5.1. Be that as it may, I find no merit in the contention of the petitioner for the simple reason that at every stage, the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing to put forth her defence. The petitioner also availed of the same. Even assuming for a moment, if the petitioner was not allowed to take copies of the Enquiry Report on 30.10.2015, it is not known as to why she did not make any compliant immediately. The typed set of papers shows that, after communication by the second respondent, dated 20.10.2015, the petitioner made the representations only on 05.11.2015 and 07.12.2015. Therefore, it is seen that only with a view to protract the matter, the petitioner has lunched the present Writ Petition. Further, the amount determined by the respondents is only a meagre sum, namely, Rs.1,211/- and therefore, no serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner.

6. Consequently, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai-23.

To 1.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

2.The District Child Development Project Office, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

3.The Child Development Project Officer, Melpuram, Kanyakumari District.

+1cc to M/s.R.Viajaykumar, Advocate in SR.35118 +1cc to the Special Government Pleader, in SR.35948 W.P(MD).No.12163 of 2016 12.07.2016 ssm PBK/SK-SKN 29/09/2016 ::3P-6C: