IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.02.2010
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR
W.P.No. 34183 of 2006
1 M. BABU [ PETITIONER ]
Vs
1 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
(AGRI. ENGG.) 1-A BEACH ROAD,
CUDDALORE -1.
2 THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
(AGRI. ENGG.) TUBE WELL SCHEME,
BOOTHAMUR, VIRUDHACHALAM. [ RESPONDENT ]
Prayer
Original application No. 10143 of 1998 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench to issue a direction
to call for the records relating to proceedings of the Second Respondent made in A 5584/92 dt. 2.11.1998 to quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents to extend all benefits both
service and monetary. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the original application was re-transferred and numbered as writ petition.
For Petitioner .. Mr. L. Chandrakumar
For Respondents .. Mr.S.Sivashanmugam Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition is filed to issue a direction to call for the records relating to proceedings of the Second Respondent made in A 5584/92 dt. 2.11.1998 to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to extend all benefits both service and monetary. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was abolished, the original application was re-transferred and numbered as writ petition.
2. The original application has been filed in the year 1998 challenging the order of recovery passed by the second respondent. According to the learned Government Advocate, the petitioner, who is a driver, was responsible for the accident, as held by the Tribunal and consequent to the award, he is liable to pay certain amount and that is sought to be recovered by the impugned proceedings. The plea taken is that the petitioner was not a party before the Tribunal and that the recovery order has been issued without notice. Therefore, there is a violation of Principles of Natural Justice.
3. Heard Mr. Sivashanumagam, learned Government Advocate, who pleaded that in the event of the Court interfering with the impugned proceedings, the department may be allowed to put the petitioner on notice and proceed within the matter afresh.
4. Considering the very nature of the order, which demands the amount without hearing the petitioner and without affording an opportunity to put forward his plea on merits, this Court is of the view that the order of recovery cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The respondents are at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law if they intend to proceed for recovery. This writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
08.2.2010
ra
Index: /No
Internet: Yes
To
1 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
(AGRI. ENGG.) 1-A BEACH ROAD,
CUDDALORE -1.
2 THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
(AGRI. ENGG.) TUBE WELL SCHEME,
BOOTHAMUR, VIRUDHACHALAM.
R. SUDHAKAR.J
ra
W.P.No. 34183 of 2006
DATED: 08.02.2010