IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.6.2008
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
W.P.No.27273 of 2006 (T)
O.A.No.7972 of 1995
M.N.Sanaranarayanan .. Petitioner
vs.
1. Accountant General
o/o. Accountant General
Teynampet, Madras-18
2. Sub-Treasury Officer
Avadi .. Respondents
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to set aside the impugned order of recovery passed in Na.Ka.No.3653/95/A3, dated 5.12.1995, by the Sub Treasury Officer, Avadi.
For petitioner : Mr.P.M.Sundaram
For Respondents : Mr.V.Vijayashankar for R1
Mr.T.Sreenivasan
Government Advocate for R2
O R D E R
The petitioner has stated that he was enlisted as a police constable in the Tamil Nadu Special Armed Police in the year, 1948. The petitioner was promoted as a Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1962. He was compulsorily retired from service in the year 1982, based on the charges framed against him, under Rule 3(b) of The Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Rules, 1955.
2. The petitioner has also stated that he had filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the impugned order of compulsory retirement. The writ petition was transferred to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal as T.A.No.1548 of 1989. By an order passed by the Tribunal, the respondent was directed to reinstate the petitioner in service, with all consequential benefits. The Government had filed a Special Leave Petition, in S.L.P.No.18780 of 1994, before the Supreme Court challenging the order passed by the Tribunal. The Supreme Court had set aside the order of the Tribunal and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, in accordance with law. While T.A.No.1548 of 1989 was pending, the respondent had issued an order of recovery of Rs.9130/-, from the petitioner’s pension, for his occupation of the Government quarters upto 17.7.1986.
3. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner, who is a retired Sub Inspector of Police, is drawing pension from the Sub-Treasury, Avadi. The first respondent, in his letter No.5/1V/Urg.124/1354, dated 20.11.1995, had requested the Treasury Officer, Tiruvallur, to recover the market rate of rent of Rs.9,130/- from the dearness allowance of the monthly pension of the petitioner. The Treasury Officer, Tiruvallur, had in turn retransmitted the said letter to the Sub Treasury Officer, Avadi, requesting him to recover the amount mentioned in the said communication. Thus, the second respondent, had issued the impugned order, dated 5.12.1995, to recover the rental arrears from the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order, dated 5.12.1995, has been issued by the second respondent without giving any notice to the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity to put forth his case.
5. It has also been stated that the order of recovery states that an amount of Rs.9,130/- is due from the petitioner as rent for the quarters upto 17.7.1986. However, it does not show the date from which the petitioner is liable to pay the rent. Hence, the impugned order, dated 5.12.1995, issued by the second respondent, in Na.Ka.No.3653/95/A3, is arbitrary, illegal and void.
6. The contentions raised on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner have not been refuted by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
7. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 5.12.1995, is quashed. However, the respondents are permitted to pass appropriate orders relating to the matter, if they are so advised, considering the issues, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due notice to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.
lan
To:
1. Accountant General
o/o. Accountant General
Teynampet, Madras-18
2. Sub-Treasury Officer
Avadi