Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1302
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
C. Jayakumar & Another – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Special Programme Implementation Department, Chennai & others – Respondent
W.P.(MD)Nos. 4343, 4127 of 2014 & M.P.(MD).Nos. 1 & 2 of 2014 & 1 & 2 of 2014
Decided On : 09-11-2020
For the Petitioners:C. Venkatesh Kumar for M/s. Ajmal Associates, Advocates.
For the Respondents: S. Shanmuga Selvan, Additional Government Pleader.
The judgment established the importance of a speaking order and adherence to principles of natural justice in recovery proceedings, emphasizing the need for consideration of explanations submitted by the concerned parties.
Headnote:
Laptops - Recovery Proceedings - G.O.Ms.No.16 Special Programme Implementation Department, dated 24.10.2013 - Summary of Acts and Sections: G.O.Ms.No.16 Special Programme Implementation Department - The court discussed the recovery proceedings based on G.O.Ms.No.16 and emphasized the need for a speaking order and adherence to principles of natural justice. The judgment highlighted the lack of consideration for the explanations submitted by the petitioners and the non-speaking nature of the impugned orders. The court also directed the formation of a Special Committee to monitor cases of laptop theft and suggested measures for proper storage and custody of laptops at educational institutions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, headmaster and headmistress of government schools, were held responsible for the theft of laptops meant for distribution to students. The recovery proceedings were initiated based on G.O.Ms.No.16, without proper consideration of the explanations submitted by the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned orders were non-speaking and failed to consider the explanations offered by the petitioners. It set aside the orders and directed the third respondent to give a personal hearing and opportunity to the petitioners, emphasizing the need for a speaking order and adherence to principles of natural justice.
Issues: The issues revolved around the responsibility for the stolen laptops, the non-speaking nature of the impugned orders, and the lack of consideration for the explanations submitted by the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the non-speaking nature of the impugned orders, the failure to consider the explanations submitted by the petitioners, and the need for adherence to principles of natural justice in recovery proceedings.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the third respondent for a personal hearing and the issuance of a speaking order. The court also directed the formation of a Special Committee to monitor cases of laptop theft and suggested measures for proper storage and custody of laptops at educational institutions.
JUDGMENT :-
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3539/2/2013, dated 19.08.2013 and the consequential impugned proceedings issued by the third respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3539/2/2013 dated 06.02.2014 (served on 17.02.2014) and quash the same as illegal.
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.6363/A5/2014, dated 14.02.2014 and quash the same as illegal.)
Common Order:
The issue involved in these two writ petitions are one and the same, these two writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of by way of common order.
These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the respective respondents and quash the same as illegal.
2. The service matrix of the petitioners that are required for the determination of this writ petition are as under:
(a) In respect of W.P(MD).No.4343 of 2014, the petitioner was working as a Headmaster in the Government Higher Secondary School, C.Ayyampalayam, Mannachanallur Taluk, Trichy District. Intially he was appointed as P.G.Assistant(Zoology) on 28.10.1987. The petitioner had rendered 27 years of unblemished service and he was not issued with any charge memo. The State Government identified several articles for free distribution to the students studying in the Government and Government aided Schools free of cost. Accordingly, 118 Laptops were issued to the petitioner's school for distribution to the students. On 13.06.2013, it was reported that out of 118 laptops 31 laptops stored in the Headmaster Room were stolen. Thereafter the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Mannachannallur Police Statoion and an FIR was also registered under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC in Crime No.108 of 2013. When investigation was in progress, the third respondent initiated recovery proceedings based upon the G.O.Ms.No.16 Special Programme Implementation Department, dated 24.10.2013. Aggrieved against the said order, the writ petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
(b) In respect of W.P.(MD).No.4127 of 2014, the petitioner Vasanthi Stella Bai is the Headmistress of the Government Higher Secondary School, Kosukurichi, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District and a similar incident has said to have taken place whereby 26 number of laptops was found to be stolen and the responsibilities was fixed upon the Headmistress following the G.O.Ms.No.16 Special Programme Implementation Department, dated 24.10.2013. Price of one laptop is fixed at Rs.13,939/- for the financial year 2011-12 and Rs.16,789.50/- for the financial year 2012-13. Accordingly, recovery was ordered after giving show cause notice. Following the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed by the third respondent. Hence the petitioner filed W.P.(MD).No.4127 of 2014.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners in both petitions relied upon the decision of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.11213 of 2014 dated 17.09.2019, wherein for the similarly placed person, recovery has been ordered and the same was set aside on the ground that the non-speaking order has been passed by the contesting respondent. The learned Government Pleader submitted that because of the irresponsibility of the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.4343 of 2014, 31 laptops were stolen in the Government Higher Secondary School, S.Ayyampalayam, Trichy District which is worth about Rs.5,20,474.50/-.
4. Heard both side and perused the records.
5. After hearing both the parties and after perusing the orders impugned in both writ petitions,
