High Court Madras High Court

M. Doraisamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 June, 2003

Madras High Court
M. Doraisamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 June, 2003
       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27/06/2003

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA

WRIT PETITION.NO.6404 OF 1999

M. Doraisamy                   ..  Petitioner

-Vs-

1. State of Tamil Nadu,
   rep. by Secretary to Govt.,
   Handloom, Handicrafts, Textiles &
   Khadi Department,
   Fort St. George, Chennai 9.

2. Tamil Nadu Khadi & Village
   Industries Board, rep. by
   its Chief Executive Officer,
   Kuralagam Buildings,
   Esplanade, Chennai 108.              ..     Respondents


        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for  the
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.

For Petitioner :  Mr.V.  Iyyathurai for
                Mr.C.  Jaganathan

For Respondent-1       :  Mrs.N.G.  Kalaiselvi
                        Special Govt.  Pleader

Respondent-2 :  Mr.B.  Dinesh Kumar

:J U D G M E N T

The petitioner was serving under the Khadi & village
Industries Board, the second respondent. A departmental proceeding was
initiated against the petitioner in March, 1989 and an order was passed on
31.7.1989 directing recovery of Rs.6,27,521/-. The petitioner filed WP.
No.12160 of 1989. By order dated 1.2.1990, the said writ petition was allowed
and the order dated 31.7.1989 was quashed solely on the ground that reasonable
opportunity has not been given to the petitioner and principles of natural
justice had been violated. Thereafter the Chief Executive Officer of Tamil
Nadu Khadi & Village Industries Board passed final order dated 29.9.1985 in
Rc.No.50689/E3(2)/88 terminating the petitioner from service. As against the
said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Commissioner and the
Special Secretary to the Government raising various contentions. By a laconic
order dated 8.2.1999 passed by the Secretary to the Government, such appeal
has been dismissed. A perusal of said order, which has been translated in
English, indicates that apart from narrating the brief history, no reason has
been given by the respondent No.1, except stating that no new grounds had been
raised in the appeal.

2. In the present writ petition, various contentions had been
advanced challenging the order passed by the respondents 1 & 2 including the
ground that the appellate authority has mechanically dismissed the appeal
without giving any reasons for the same.

3. The right of filing appeal is statutory in nature. In the
absence of any limitation in the statutory provision providing for filing of
appeal, the jurisdiction of the appellate authority is as wide as that of the
original authority and the appellate authority has the jurisdiction as well as
the duty to consider the entire matter afresh in accordance with law on the
basis of the materials on record. The appellate authority even in a
departmental proceeding has to state the reasons for the conclusions arrived
at by it.

4. In the present case, as already indicated, excepting
stating that no new grounds have been raised, no other reason has been given.
Even the contentions raised by the petitioner in the appeal memo have not been
noticed nor any specific reason has been given for not accepting any
particular contention. Since the first respondent has not given any reason
for the conclusions reached by him, such an order cannot be sustained and it
is hereby quashed. The appellate authority is required to consider the
grounds taken by the petitioner in the appeal memo and to give specific
reasons in one way or the other. The matter has to be dealt with in
accordance with law afresh as early as possible, preferably within a period of
six months from the date of communication of the present order. If any fresh
contention is raised by the petitioner by filing additional memo/petition
within a period of three weeks from to-day, such contention should also be
considered in accordance with law by the appellate authority.

5. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is
allowed. No costs.

Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
dpk

To

1. State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by Secretary to Govt.,
Handloom, Handicrafts, Textiles &
Khadi Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.

2. Tamil Nadu Khadi & Village
Industries Board, rep. by
its Chief Executive Officer,
Kuralagam Buildings,
Esplanade, Chennai 108.