Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1425 (MAD)

N. Subramanian v. Superintendent Of Police

2012-03-20

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the recovery order passed by the respondent vide D.O.No.999/2001 C.No.B1/19481/2001 dt.6.11.2001. 2. The impugned order of recovery dated 6.11.2001 reads as under: D.O.No.999/2001District Police Office C.No.81/19481/2001Perambalur. Dated 06.11.2001 RECOVERY OF PAY FIXATION As per letter received from Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi in C.No.N1/45044/2001, dated 10.10.2001, a sum of Rs.25,316/-(Rupees twenty five thousand three hundred and sixteen only) towards the overdrawal amount of pay and allowances paid to Thiru N.Subramanian, Deputy Superintendent of Police, District crime branch, Perambalur, formerly of Thoothukudi District as pointed out in Account General's Audit objection will be recovered and credited to Government. The fact has to be intimated to the Accounts officer, Office of the Accountant General, Madurai branch, Madurai under intimation to the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi. 3. This is due to the fact that the pay as Inspector (SG) was fixed on 01.06.1988 in the time scale of pay of Rs.2000-3200 instead of in the time scale of pay of Rs.2200-4000 and that they pay was fixed on promotion as Dy. Supdt. Of Police on 01.10.1993 under FR 228 instead of giving two increment on 01.10.1993 meant for promotion on identical time scale. 4. Thiru N.Subramanian, Dy. Supdt. of Police, District Crime branch is due for retirement on superannuation on 28.02.2002, hence a sum of Rs.6,329/- (Rupees six thousand three hundred and twenty nine only) will be recovered from his pay beginning from the month of 11/2001 to February 2002 and credited to Government. 5. The impugned order is challenged on the ground that it was passed in violation of principle of natural justice, and also on the ground that in absence of any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation, benefit granted even if wrongly, cannot be cancelled retrospectively to claim recovery. 6. The reading of the impugned order shows, that there is no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation against the petitioner, therefore, it is not open to the respondent to recover the amount alleged to have paid wrongly. 7. Even otherwise, the impugned order cannot be sustained as it is passed in violation of principle of natural justice, though it affects the civil rights of the petitioner.8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. No costs.