Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 858 (MAD)

S. Annamalai v. Director of Rural Development

2013-02-11

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2013
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2007 passed by the Collector, Tiruvallur District, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that the order is totally a non-speaking order, as it neither deals with the reason for coming to the conclusion as to why the amount was to be recovered, nor it deals with the contentions raised by the petitioner in reply to the show cause notice. 2. The operative part of the order challenged in this writ petition reads as under:- "The recovery order already issued by the Collector, Tiruvallur, in Proc.Rc.85143/PB2 dated 31.10.07 is hereby confirmed for the following reasons. (1) Though the work was executed under the supervision of the technical authority, they had not considered the expenditure claimed to have been incurred by the Rural Welfare Officer as the value of works assessed by the competent authority was only Rs.87,855/- (2) The value assessed by the measurement authority/check measurement authority is within the estimate amount of Rs.90000/- (3) Revised estimate had not been prepared taking into consideration the expenditure claimed to have been incurred by the Rural Welfare Officer over and above the estimate." 3. The petitioner, while working as Rural Welfare Officer Grade II, was given the job of construction of Model School. The petitioner was paid the claimed amount spent in construction. 4. Subsequently, on the allegation that the petitioner claimed certain excess amount, a recovery order was passed to recover a sum of Rs.31,692/-(Rupees thirty one thousand six hundred and ninety two only) from the petitioner. 5. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the order of recovery, filed O.A.No.4188 of 1994 before the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The application was allowed, and the order of recovery was set aside with liberty to the District Collector to pass fresh orders. 6. In view of the order passed by the learned Tribunal, the District Collector appointed a Divisional Development Officer, Tiruvallur District, as enquiry officer, who submitted his report on 31.05.1995 instructing the fourth respondent , Additional Block Development Officer, to submit a self-explanatory write-off proposal to the Government for writing-off the excess expenditure amount of Rs.31,692/-(Rupees thirty one thousand six hundred and ninety two only) under N.R.B.1 (1998-99) at the earliest. 7. The District Collector did not agree with the recommendation and instead, ordered the recovery from the petitioner. 7. The District Collector did not agree with the recommendation and instead, ordered the recovery from the petitioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of the Collector, filed W.P.No.36116 of 2006 (T), which was allowed by this Court. 8. The operative part of the order passed by this Court reads as under:- "3. In view of the Enquiry Officer's report and the suggestion as referred to earlier, if the District Collector is still insisting on the order of recovery, he is duty bound to issue a show cause notice as to how he is differing from the finding of the Enquiry Officer's report and after receiving explanation fro the same from the petitioner only, he can pass final order of recovery. The said procedure has not been followed by the District Collector while passing the impugned order. Hence the impugned order is set aside with liberty to the District Collector to issue show cause notice to the petitioner calling for explanation and after receiving explanation from him, the District Collector, Tiruvallur District is directed to consider the same and pass fresh orders. The District Collector to proceed is directed to pass final orders on or before 31.12.2007. It is made clear that if no order is passed on or before 31.12.2007, the amount withheld from the D.C.R.G. shall be refunded to the petitioner. 4. The writ petition is allowed with above liberty and direction. No costs." 9. After the passing of the order by this Court in setting aside the order of recovery, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice by the Collector, on the allegations that the petitioner had not produced the bill in support of the expenditure incurred, nor produced the daily wages bill. The other allegation was that while appointing daily wage labourers, the petitioner did not obtain permission from the competent authority. 10. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice. The District Collector, instead of giving reasons to disagree with the enquiry officer or meeting with the reasons given in reply to show cause notice, decided to confirm the earlier order, which was not in existence, in view of the order of this Court in setting aside the order of recovery. 11. The District Collector, instead of giving reasons to disagree with the enquiry officer or meeting with the reasons given in reply to show cause notice, decided to confirm the earlier order, which was not in existence, in view of the order of this Court in setting aside the order of recovery. 11. The impugned order is challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the ground that the order is totally non-speaking and gives no reasons for coming to the conclusion to order recovery from the petitioner, even though the enquiry officer had opined that the expenses were to be written off. That the Collector has also given no reason, as to why the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory. It is further contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained as it has restored an non-existent order, which shows non-application of mind. 12. On consideration, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The order does not give any reason for coming to the conclusion as to why the report of the enquiry officer was not acceptable. It also does not give any reason for rejecting the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The impugned order can be said to be not only contrary to the order passed by this Court, but also, on the face of it, arbitrary, thus not sustainable in law. 13. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the case is sent back to the District Collector to re-consider the matter by taking into consideration the documents on record, as well as the explanation submitted by the petitioner and pass a speaking order giving reasons for ordering recovery or writing off the amount said to have been spent in excess. 14. No costs. Connected M.Ps. are closed.