Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2812 (MAD)

N. Krishnaswamy v. Secretary to Govt. , Chennai

2013-08-02

M.JAICHANDREN

body2013
Judgment : 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for and quash the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 11.7.2007, made in Se.Mu.No.30687/Pa.A.3/2006, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment, for two years, with cumulative effect, and the order of the 1st respondent, dated 16.8.2010, made in G.O.[D] No.116, Handloom, Handicraft, Textiles and Khadi [G1] Department, confirming the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 11.7.2007, to direct the respondents to refix the pay of the petitioner, by sanctioning the increments for the period of two years, and to consequently refix and revise the pensionary benefits and to disburse all arrears to him, along with the interest, calculated at 10% per annum. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the 2nd respondent, having found that the absence of of the petitioner, while he was in service, was unauthorised, had passed an order, dated 11.7.2007, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment, for a period of two years, with cumulative effect. The said order had been challenged before the 1st respondent, by way of an appeal. Even though a number of grounds had been raised by the petitioner, in his appeal filed before the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent had disposed of the said appeal, by his order, dated 16.8.2010, without assigning any reason, for passing such an order. The order passed by the 1st respondent is cryptic in nature and it is a non-speaking order. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the order of the 1st respondent, dated 16.8.2010, is set aside, and if the matter is remitted back to the said authority to pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, considering the grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal filed by him. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the order of the 1st respondent, dated 16.8.2010, had been passed, on merits. There is no irregularity or illegality in the said order. Therefore, the said order is to be sustained by this Court. 5. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the order of the 1st respondent, dated 16.8.2010, had been passed, on merits. There is no irregularity or illegality in the said order. Therefore, the said order is to be sustained by this Court. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the 1st respondent, in G.O.[D] No.116, Handloom, Handicraft, Textiles and Khadi [G1] Department, dated 16.8.2010, is a non-speaking order. No reasons have been assigned by the 1st respondent, while confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 11.7.2007, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment, on the petitioner, for a period of two years, with cumulative effect. The impugned order, dated 16.8.2010, passed by the 1st respondent, is cryptic in nature, and it is a non-speaking order. Therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the said order passed by the 1st respondent, dated 16.8.2010, and to remit the matter back to the 1st respondent, to pass a reasoned order, on merits and in accordance with law, by considering the grounds raised by the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent, dated 16.8.2010, made in G.O.[D] No.116, Handloom, Handicraft, Textiles and Khadi [G1] Department, is set aside. The 1st respondent shall pass a speaking order, considering the grounds raised by the petitioner, in the appeal filed by him before the said authority, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs.