IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.10.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN W.P.Nos.9269, 9277, 9278 & 9282 of 2020 and W.M.P.Nos.11311 & 11307 of 2020 R.Rajasekaran ....Petitioner in W.P.No.9269 of 2020 K.K.Gowrimanavalan ....Petitioner in W.P.No.9277 of 2020 G.Pugalenthi ....Petitioner in W.P.No.9278 of 2020 G.Venkatesh ....Petitioner in W.P.No.9282 of 2020 Vs

1. The Managing Director, Tamilnadu Civily Supplies Corporation, No.12, Thambusamy Raod, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

2. The Senior Manager – Systems Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation, No.12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

3. The Manager – Provident Fund Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation, No.12, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

4. The Regional Manager, Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Tiruppur.

....Respondents COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus call for the records relating to the order passed by the 4^th respondent herein in penalty proceeding letter No.A4/1745/2014 dated 15.05.2018, quash the same and direct the 4^th respondent to refund the recovered amount.

In all W.Ps For Petitioner : Mr.T.Kalpana Devi For Respondents : Mr.C.Selvaraj Panel Counsel for TNCSC

C O MMON ORDER

The instant Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the recovery notice issued to the petitioners on 15.05.2018 and 12.08.2018.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, petitioners have been serving in the respondent's corporation in various cadres, and that since 2010, new software has been introduced by the Corporation and that disbursement of salary and all type of reductions were duly governed by the computer. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, except the Head Office, no individuals are supposed to interfere, modify, change, alter, add and correct the software.

3. It is the specific submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, once the name of the individual is entered, then the entire calculation including necessary deductions would be automatically taken care by the Computer. It is in this background, the learned counsel would submit that, the case of the respondent that the petitioner had deliberately and with malafide intention not collected the PF amount from 106 employees, is erroneous and contrary to the factual scenario.

4. The learned counsel would further invite the attention of this Court about the TNCSC Employees Service Regulations, 1989 and by relying Chapter V, would submit that the recovery of any amount from pay is a major penalty, however to impose such penalty, no due procedure have been followed, and that no domestic enquiry was conducted, accordingly would submit that the impugned notice are contrary to law and liable to be quashed. To buttress the contention, they relied upon the following judgements.

(i) Syed Abdul Qadir and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 (ii) State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 (iii) Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1991 Supp(1) SCC 504

5. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel would vehemently submit that, the petitioners and four other employees were working in the regional office of Tirupur, and that it is their responsibility to deduct PF and remit the same before the authority. However, from April 2011 to 2013, out of 270 employees from Tiruppur Region, these petitioners did not deduct pension contribution for 109 employees, and that in view of such failure, the Provident Fund Organization has imposed interest and damages to them in a sum of Rs.9,94,445/-. It is in this background, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioners committed loss to the Corporation, which has to be compensated by the petitioners, as such, there is no infirmity in the present recovery notice.

6. I have given my anxious conside