Back
2005 Supreme(Mad) 294
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MARKANDEY KATJU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. MURUGESAN
The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited & Another - Appellant
Versus
S.Sampath - Respondents
W.A. Nos. 84 to 87 of 2000
Decided On : 18 February 2005
Administrative orders with civil consequences must provide reasons to ensure fairness and exclude arbitrariness.
Headnote:
Shortage of Paddy - Administrative Law - Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Employees Service Regulations, 1989, Chapter V - The court discussed the importance of providing reasons in administrative orders, citing precedents such as Union of India v. M.L.Capoor and S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of India. The court emphasized that even administrative orders with civil consequences must give reasons to ensure fairness and exclude arbitrariness. The court dismissed the writ appeals on the technical ground that the rules of natural justice were not complied with, but granted the appellant Corporation the liberty to pass a fresh order after considering the explanation furnished by the writ petitioner and replying to the show cause notices, in accordance with the prescribed procedure and within three months.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, while in service of the appellant Corporation, was alleged to have caused a shortage of paddy. Show cause notices were issued to the petitioner to explain the shortages, and the petitioner furnished an explanation. Subsequent orders were passed by the Corporation without providing reasons for not accepting the petitioner's explanation.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ appeals on the technical ground that the rules of natural justice were not complied with, but granted the appellant Corporation the liberty to pass a fresh order after considering the explanation furnished by the writ petitioner and replying to the show cause notices, in accordance with the prescribed procedure and within three months.
Issues: Non-compliance with the rules of natural justice, lack of reasons provided in the administrative orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of providing reasons in administrative orders, even those with civil consequences, to ensure fairness and exclude arbitrariness.
Final Decision: The writ appeals are dismissed, but the appellant Corporation is granted the liberty to pass a fresh order after considering the explanation furnished by the writ petitioner and replying to the show cause notices, in accordance with the prescribed procedure and within three months.
Chief Justice:
These writ appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 6.1.1999. We have carefully perused the impugned order and heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The facts in detail have been given in the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.
3. There was an allegation against the petitioner that while in service of the appellant Corporation, he was involved in causing shortage of paddy for the amounts mentioned in the show cause notices. Show cause notices were given to him dated 17.3.1987 and 2.6.1988 to show cause why the value of the shortages in excess over the allowable norms should not be recovered from him. In reply to the show cause notices, the respondent in these appeals furnished his explanation. The explanation states:-
"I have been asked to show cause as to why a sum of Rs.11,384.39 should not be recovered from me towards the cost of transit shortage noticed while the movement made to Salem Region during Kuruvai-83.
In this connection I submit that the paddy in question was moved only after the weighment was done at Modern Rice Mill, Sithakkadu and no second weighment was made either in my presence or at Railhead and whatever the quantity despatched by the direct purchase centres, Modern Rice Mill, Sithakkadu was loaded into wagons without second weighment made.
Most of the gunnies have been packed with serviceable patches gunnies. But if the spillage bags have been noticed at the other end at the time of clearance of the wagons, they might have been acknowledged. The acknowledgement details have not been appended with the show cause notice. In the absence of details, the paddy despatched should have been received. It clearly shows that the shortage noticed only due to mode of weighment made at different places and the reduction of moisture content otherwise there may not be possible for shortage.
I also submit that no unit shortage was noticed. Hence I am not responsible for the shortage noticed in any way."
4. Thereafter four orders dated 30.3.1990, 15.5.1990, 2.4.1990 and 5.11.1990 were passed. The order dated 30.3.1990 reads as follows:-
A quantity of 682.229 M.Ts. of paddy was moved from Railhead, Mayiladuthurai to Salem Region during December, 83. The details of quantity moved and acknowledgment weight are furnished below:
Total quantity moved : 682.229
Total quantity acknowledged : 666.330
Total shortage : 15.899
Regularised within the norms : 6.817
Exceeding the norms above 1% : 9.802
Even after the regularisation of the shortages a quantity of 9.802 M.Ts., has been noted as shortages exceeding the norms. The value of shortages 9.802 M.Ts., of paddy works out to Rs.15166.94. The Head Office has instructed to recover the above amount equally from the person who attended the movement works in both ends. Thiru S.Sampath formerly A.Q.I MRM/Sitharkadu is responsible for the shortages. His explanation is not acceptable one. Hence, a sum of Rs.7583.47 (Rupees seven thousand five hundred and eighty three and paise forty seven only) is ordered to be recovered from Thiru S.Sampath, A.Q.I, the Deputy Manager (A/cs.), Mayiladuthurai to recover the amount from Thiru S.Sampath, A.Q.I from the pay of the individuals in 30 equal instalments." (sic.)
5. A perusal of the order dated 30.3.1990 shows that no reasons have been given therein, but only conclusions. There is a difference between reasons and conclusions, vide Union of India v. M.L.Capoor (AIR 1974 SC 87). In paragraph 28 of the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court observed: -
"Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisi
