The rejection of benefits must be based on a proper application of mind, and disciplinary action must be conducted expeditiously with appropriate evidence.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of this Court dated 12.09.2017 made in W.P. 1487 of 2014.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent in connection with the order of dismissal in Na.Ka.No.10741/2011/U3 dated 11.06.2021, quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to serve as Bill collector peacefully till the date of superannuation with all monetary and service benefits along with arrears.)

Common Judgment

V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, J.

1. Challenging the correctness of the order dated 12.09.2017 in W.P.No.1487 of 2014 passed by the Learned Single Judge, the State Authorities have come up with the present Writ Appeal.

2. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal in Na.Ka.No.10741/2011/U3 dated 11.06.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner, who is the respondent in the Writ Appeal, has come forward with the present Writ Petition seeking to quash the same, as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to serve as Bill collector peacefully till the date of superannuation with all monetary and service benefits along with arrears.

3. Earlier, viz., on 29.06.2022, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the services of the Writ Petitioner is subsequently discontinued by the Authorities and the same is challenged in W.P.No.4774 of 2022, hence, a direction was issued to tag the said Writ petition along with the present Writ Appeal. Since the issues / facts involved in the Appeal as well as in the Petition are one and the same, they are taken up together and a Common Judgment is passed.

4. For the sake of convenience, the prayer in the Writ Appeal is dealt with at the first instance and the prayer in the Writ Petition at the second instance.

5. The Learned Single Judge while passing the Impugned Order on 12.09.2017 in W.P.No.1487 of 2014 filed by the Respondent/Petitioner had observed that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner, is completely devoid of any application of mind by the authorities and the observation made by the Division Bench has been completely taken out of context for not granting benefits to the petitioner, as otherwise he is entitled for grant of periodical increments with effect from 1992 etc.,

6. The Learned Additional Advocate General I for Special Government Pleader for the Appellants contends that the Learned Single Judge erred in law in holding that the rejection order dated 17.10.2013 of the 3rd appellant was completely devoid of any application of mind, ignoring the context in which the 3rd appellant had passed the rejection order. The 3rd appellant is at liberty to issue show cause notice to the respondent to enable him to explain his irregular appointment, which appointment had been made ultravires the Rules and Regulations, however, the Court has assumed and presumed things in favour of the respondent without deciding the respondent's eligibility and qualification for benefits. Further, the learned Single Judge has completely lost sight of the case on hand and without adjudicating the contentions / issues involved, has merely accepted the allegations raised by the respondent.

7. According to the Learned Additional Advocate General I for the Appellants, the Learned Single Judge had failed to take into account the basic fact that the original appointment of the respondent was irregular, for which he was originally dismissed. Further, directed the appellants to grant the benefits to the respondent within three months, brushing aside the reality that the respondent is not entitled and eligible for any benefits, in view of the irregularity in his original appointment. That apart, due to various petitions filed by the respondent before this Court, the appellants were not able to pass any appropriate orders in time. Hence pleaded