Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2735 (MAD)

S. Ilango v. The District Collector

2008-07-30

M.JAICHANDREN

body2008
Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner has stated that he is an Assistant Engineer in the Highways and Rural Works Department. He was working in the National Highways-I Section, of the National Highways-I Division, Madurai. Having been appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the Highways and Rural Works Department, on 16. 84, he had been sent on deputation to the panchayat Development Department, as a Union Engineer, K. Mayladumbarai Panchayat Union, from 30.91. Thus, he had worked as a Union Engineer from 30.4.91 to 30.92. Thereafter, he was transferred back to his parent Department and posted as an Assistant Engineer, National Highways-I Section, Madurai from 93. 3. It has been further stated that while he was working as a Union Engineer in Myladumbarai Panchayat Union, the petitioner had to perform his duties, in relation to the Jawahar Velai Vaipu Thittam (JVVT Scheme). Certain works, which were to be carried out departmentally, had been entrusted to the Rural Welfare Officers of the Panchayat Union, Myladumparai. The estimates were prepared and approved by the Department. The advances were given to the Rural Welfare Officers. As a Union Engineer, the petitioner had recommended for the payment of advance, within the estimated amount, to the Rural Welfare officers, as per their requisition, only after due verification of the necessary details. All the recommendations of the petitioner were approved by the Commissioner of Panchayat Union. The cement bags and steel rods were given to Rural Welfare officers, only after getting their acknowledgement and the materials were supplied only as per the requirements, which were within the estimate. When the petitioner had left the panchayat union, there was no deficit stocks of materials and his successors had not complained about the deficit stocks. However, after two years of the petitioner leaving the old station and joining the parent department, a memo was issued by the Collector of Madurai in his proceedings, dated 11. 95, pointing out the alleged loses caused by the petitioner. A reply had been submitted by the petitioner, on 20.1.95, denying the allegations made against him. Thereafter, the Collector had passed orders, on 21. 95, rejecting the explanation of the petitioner and directing the recovery of a sum of Rs.4,95,699/-, by his proceedings, dated 295. 95, pointing out the alleged loses caused by the petitioner. A reply had been submitted by the petitioner, on 20.1.95, denying the allegations made against him. Thereafter, the Collector had passed orders, on 21. 95, rejecting the explanation of the petitioner and directing the recovery of a sum of Rs.4,95,699/-, by his proceedings, dated 295. Further, the petitioner had not been paid the salary due to him from the month of December, 1992. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed an original application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.4120 of 1995, which has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.21844 of 2006. 4. In the reply affidavit field on behalf of the respondent, it has been stated that the petitioner was working as a Union Engineer in K. Myaladumparai Panchayat Union, during the years 1991-92 and 1992-93. He was on deputation from the Highways and Rural works from 30.4.91 to 30.92. His services were placed under the disposal of the Panchyat Union Commissioner, K. Mayladumparai. The petitioner had proceeded on Medical Leave from 30.12.92 to 1. 93. On expiry of the leave period, he did not resume his duty and stayed away without any intimation. The Divisional Engineer (NH), Madurai, in his Letter, dated 2. 93, had informed the Block Development Officer, K. Mayladumparai Panchayat Union, that the petitioner had joined duty, as an Assistant Engineer in the National Highways-I Division, Madurai, on 93. While the petitioner was working as a Union Engineer in K. Myladumparai Panchayat Union, he had to perform his duties in connection with the execution of various works under the Jawahar Velai Vaipu Thittam. The Government of India had issued certain guidelines regarding the types of work etc., for the implementation of the scheme. During the financial year, 1991-92 and 1992-93, 29 works were taken up under the Jawahar Velai Vaipu Thittam and S.S.Scheme, in K. Myladumparai Panchayat Union. The works were entrusted to the Rural Welfare Officers to execute them, departmentally. When it was brought to the notice of the Collector, Madurai, that the above works were not executed properly and many of them were left half way, the Collector, Madurai, in his Letter No.110179/92/K4-6, dated 112. 92, had requested the Divisional Development Officer, Periakulam, to enquire into the matter and to send a detailed report thereon. In the Letter No.A6/8989/92, dated 1. 92, had requested the Divisional Development Officer, Periakulam, to enquire into the matter and to send a detailed report thereon. In the Letter No.A6/8989/92, dated 1. 93, the Divisional Development Officer, Periakulam, had reported that the works are of inferior quality and that the petitioner had failed to take steps to complete the works in time. Further, there was also a deficit of stocks ranging 3.628 MT of Steel, 447 bags of cement, 17.154 MT of bitumen. Further, it was found that out of 29 works only 12 works had been completed. Certain advances had been paid over and above the value of the work done. Measurements were not recorded by the petitioner and he was keeping the M.Books with him even after a period fo 1 ½ years, pending preparation of the bills for the completed works and an advance amount of Rs.19 lakhs was outstanding for more than two years despite achieving the yearly target. Since such a loss was caused to the Government, the District Collector, Madurai, after assessing the actual involvement of the petitioner issued proceedings No.K11/110179/92, dated 21. 95, directing the recovery of a sum of Rs.4,95,699/-, within the frame work of the rules and the regulations. The petitioner had not recorded the measurements in time and in preparing the bills for the executed works in violation of Article 174 of the Tamilnadu Financial Code Vol.I. Therefore, the claims made by the petitioner are devoid of merits and substance and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was a permanent Government servant and he was sent on deputation to the Panchayat Union Mayiladumparai and therefore, the District Collector, Madurai, is incompetent to enforce any order of penalty without consulting the parent department of the petitioner. Further, the Collector is not competent to enforce any major penalty on the petitioner as a deputationist. Even assuming that the order of the recovery issued against the petitioner for a sum of Rs.4,95,699/- is not a major penalty, the Collector is not competent to enforce the penalty on the petitioner after he had left the service of the Panchayat Union and re-joined in his parent department. Further, the order of recovery passed against the petitioner, without consulting the Chief Engineer (Highways and Rural Works), is illegal and contrary to Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules. Further, the order of recovery passed against the petitioner, without consulting the Chief Engineer (Highways and Rural Works), is illegal and contrary to Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules. Further, the District Collector, Madurai, has resorted to the recovery, even without issuing a charge memo, under Rule 17(a) of the C.C.S. and C.C.A. Rules. Since the final orders have been passed without holding an enquiry, when the petitioner had denied the charges, the said order would be contrary to the principles of natural justice. The order of the District Collector, Madurai, seeking to recover twice the cost of the materials is without any basis and it is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law. The impugned order had been passed without proper apportionment of the liability amongst the other officers who were found to be responsible. Since the petitioner was not liable for the stock deficit, the impugned order cannot be held to be valid. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the impugned proceedings had been passed only in accordance with the Rules applicable to the case. The recovery of double the cost of the materials found to be in deficit has been issued in view of the instructions given in Articles 174 and 175 of the Tamilnadu Financial Code Vol.I. The petitioner, even after repeated reminders, did not surrender the M.Books and the other documents, even after being relieved from K. Myladumparai Panchayat Union, on 30.92. 7. It has been further submitted that the petitioner was on deputation from the Highways Department to K. Myladumparai Panchayat Union and his services were placed under the disposal of the Block Development Officer, K.Myladumparai. The Collector, Madurai District, has the authority to issue the recovery orders to make good the loss caused by the petitioner during his tenure as a Union Engineer in K.Myladumparai Panchayat Union and to settle the audit objections. The District Collector, Madurai, has not inflicted any punishment on the petitioner. The District Collector, Madurai, had issued recovery orders within the frame work of the rules and the regulations to make good the loss of Government funds, caused by the petitioner. In letter No.K.11/110179/92, dated 2. 95, the Collector, Madurai, had referred the matter to the Chief Engineer (Highways and Rural Works), Madras, to initiate action against the petitioner for his official misconduct. In letter No.K.11/110179/92, dated 2. 95, the Collector, Madurai, had referred the matter to the Chief Engineer (Highways and Rural Works), Madras, to initiate action against the petitioner for his official misconduct. Therefore, the provisions of Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules are not violated. Since the petitioner had failed to follow the conditions laid down under Article 177 of the Financial Code Vol.I, the lapses had been objected to in the audit. A detailed enquiry had been conducted by the Personal Assistant to the Collector, Madurai, on 8. 94, 18. 94, 210. 94 and 111. 94, in the presence of the Assistant Divisional Engineer (NREP), Periakulam, who is the authority competent to check measure the works. The petitioner and the other officials were given sufficient opportunity to defend themselves. A memo, dated 20.1.95, was issued by the Collector, Madurai, calling for further explanation. The explanation offered by the petitioner was not convincing. Hence, the Collector, Madurai, has issued the recovery orders to make good the loss and to settle the audit objections and to restart the works which were left incomplete. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, it is clear that the impugned order of the District Collector, Madurai, dated 21. 95, in proceedings No.K11/110179/92, has been issued after a detailed enquiry had been conducted, giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to explain his case. During the enquiry, it has been found that the petitioner has caused the loss of Government funds due to deficit stocks and incomplete works. Accordingly, the District Collector, Madurai, had issued the impugned proceedings, giving the details of the amounts to be recovered from the petitioner. Therefore, a request had been made to the Divisional Engineer, Highways, Madurai, Division-II, to take further follow up action. Thus, it is found that the District Collector, Madurai, in his proceedings, dated 21. 1995, had issued orders for the recovery of the loss caused by the petitioner, in accordance with the rules and the regulations applicable to the case. Even the said recovery would be given effect to only by the authorities of the Highways and Rural Works Department, to which the petitioner belongs. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner, that the respondent has imposed a punishment of recovery on the petitioner contrary to law, cannot be sustained. 9. Even the said recovery would be given effect to only by the authorities of the Highways and Rural Works Department, to which the petitioner belongs. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner, that the respondent has imposed a punishment of recovery on the petitioner contrary to law, cannot be sustained. 9. In such view of the matter, this Court finds no merits in the claims made by the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.