Jones (Died) v. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 25.08.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMANW.P. NO.7484 OF 20071.Jones (Died)2.J.Bathmini W/o.Jones,3.A.Suman Kiruba Anitha D/o.Jones(L.Rs of Deceased sole Petitionersubstituted as per order dt.19.6.09 in M.P.1/09 inW.P.7484 of 2007) .. PetitionersVersus1.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration Chepauk, madras-5.2.Director of Local Fund Audit, IV, Floor, Kuralagam, Madras-600 108.3.Assistant Director of Lodcal Funds (Municipal Funds), Chepauk, Madras-5.4.The Commissioner, Villupuram Municipality, Villupuram.5.The Commissioner, Chidambaram Municipality, Chidambaram.6.The Commissioner, Tindivanam Municipality Tindivanam. .. Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ PRAYER : This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.119 of 2003from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer tocall for the records in connection with Na.Ka.303/02 C.1 dated31.07.2002 and partly quash in respect of recovery alone of the orderof the sixth respondent Na.Ka.303/2002 C.1 dated 31.07.2002 in so faras it declares that the applicant is liable to pay a sum ofRs.1,80,045/-. For Petitioner: Mr.K.ChandrasekaranFor Respondents: Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya Additional Government PleaderO R D E RThe Original Application in O.A.No.119 of 2003 before theTamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the"Tribunal") is the present writ petition. 2. Heard the submissions made by Mr.K.Chandrasekaran learnedcounsel for the petitioner and Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya, learnedAdditional Government Pleader for the respondents. 3.The Original Application in O.A.No.119 of 2003(W.P.No.7484 of 2007) was filed by the Mr.J.Jones, who is not more.He left behind him his wife and his daughter as his legalrepresentatives, who are now the petitioners. 4.Mr.J.Jones joined as a Lower Division Clerk in ThindivanamMunicipality on 14.03.1967. He worked in different Municipalitiesbefore he reached the age of superannuation on 31.07.2002. In themeantime, he also gain promotions. While he was serving inThindivanam Municipality, he was retired from service on 31.07.2002. 5.While he was serving as a Revenue Inspector in VillupuramMunicipality, the Commissioner of Villupuram Municipality issuedcharge sheet dated 04.06.2002, alleging that he failed to recover theProperty Tax amount of Rs.81,491/- for the year 1991-92 and theProfessional Tax of Rs.40,716/- for the year 1991-92 and in total, hecaused a loss of Rs.1,21,657/- to the Department. However, no finalorder was passed. The Villupuram Municipality also issued anothercharge sheet dated 09.07.2002, alleging that the petitioner failed tocollect the Property Tax of Rs.2,14,012/- for the years 1986-87 to1989-90, Professional Tax of Rs.1,57,706/- for the years 1986-87 to1989-90 and the lease amount of Rs.45,855/- for the years 1993-94 to1994-95. It is alleged that he committed misconduct in not collectingthe aforesaid amounts. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6.A similar charge sheet dated 11.07.2002 was issued by theCommissioner of Chidambaram Municipality, alleging that he failed tocollect the lease amount for the period of 1995-96 and 1996-97 andalso failed to collect rent from the shops owned by the Municipality,to the tune of Rs.22,675/- and thereby he caused loss to the tune ofRs.22,675/- to the Department.7.In all the charge sheets, no final orders were passed andno further proceedings took place. 8.While so, the petitioner attained the age ofSuperannuation on 31.07.2002 and he was permitted to retire fromservice. 9.In these circumstances, the impugned order was passed bythe sixth respondent stating that the petitioner is permitted toretire from service, while remunerating the responsible for the non-collection of Taxes of Rs.1,11,515/- and the lease amount ofRs.45,855/- from Villupuram Municipality and Rs.22,675/- towardslease amount for Chidambaram Municipality. In view of the impugnedorder, Mr.J.Jones was not given the DCRG and the other terminalbenefits in full. 10.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that thepetitioner could not be blamed for the non recovery of Tax dues andlease amount. Further, the impugned order was passed, fixing theresponsibility for non-recovery of tax dues and lease amount, withoutconducting any enquiry. In any event, the learned counsel submitsthat the matter is wholly covered by the decision of this court inMr.N.Mani v. The Commissioner, Villupuram Municipality reported in2006(1) CTC 632. In the said decision, the following passage in thedecision of this court in V.Nagarajan v.Commissioner, SalemMunicipality, Salem reported in 1988 WLR 38 is referred and the sameis extracted here under:-"... The respondent in the present case seemed tohave acted against the petitioner under the Tamil NaduMunicipal Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, butwithheld recovery process on account of stay by theGovernment. Now, by virtue of the Government vacatingthe stay, the process of recovery from the salary of thepetitioner is being set in motion by the present order ofthe respondent. It is only in that context a writ ofMandamus is being asked for by the petitioner, to forbearthe respondent from recovering from the salary of thepetitioner, the time barred profession taxes. Basically,there are no grounds at all to pin down the liability onthe petitioner, as now being done. The proceedings takenin this behalf are the result of a misconception of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ legal position. They have to stand ignored and cannot beimplemented. Taking note of the ratio of this Court, Ihave to hold that the petitioner cannot be mulcted withliability on this account...." The aforesaid decision reported in 2006(1) CTC 632 (Mr.N.Mani v. TheCommissioner, Villupuram Municipality) also recorded the proceedingsof the Director of Municipal Administration dated 03.12.1996 in para3 of the Judgment and the same is also extracted hereunder:"3. The above said position is also made clear from thecommunication of the Director of MunicipalAdministration, Chepauk, Chennai-5, addressed to AllRegional Directors of Municipal Administration, inRoc.No.75380/96/R1 dated 3.12.1996, which reads as under:" The Municipal Employees Associations are demandingcancellation of recovery orders for time barred arrearsamong other things. In the meeting convened on08.07.1994 in the chambers of Secretary, MunicipalAdministration and Water Supply Department to discusswith the office bearers of the Rural Development andMunicipal Employees Association Federation the followingdecision was taken on the above demand:" The Director of Municipal Administration hasalready granted time upto 3.9.1994. Time barred arrearsneed not be recovered, from the DORG etc., from theretired employees,"2. To pursue further action in this regard, Governmentconsidered that proposal to write off time barred arrearsdue to Municipalities may be taken up after the electionsto the Municipalities and after all the MunicipalCouncils pass necessary resolutions in this regard,Government have now called for a consolidated report inthis regard, in the letter cited.3.Hence, I request you to instruct all the MunicipalCommissioners within your jurisdiction to place thematter before the Municipal Council and to send adetailed report along with the copy of the resolution, induplicate. After getting the same, I request you to senda consolidated report to this office; along with copiesof resolution passed by the Municipal Councils, so as tosend a report to Government. As the matter involves thelon-standing demand of the Municipal Employees, I requestyou to expedite your report. Sd/-V.Pitchai,for Director." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to set asidethe impugned order.12.In the result, the impugned order is set aside and thewrit petition is allowed. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarAMTo1.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration Chepauk, madras-5.2.The Director of Local Fund Audit, IV, Floor, Kuralagam, Madras-600 108.3.The Assistant Director of Lodcal Funds (Municipal Funds), Chepauk, Madras-5.4.The Commissioner, Villupuram Municipality, Villupuram. 5.The Commissioner, Chidambaram Municipality, Chidambaram.6.The Commissioner, Tindivanam Municipality Tindivanam.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.418811 cc To Mr.K.Chandrasekaran, Advocate, SR.41770 W.P. NO.7484 of 2007TS(CO)SRA(16/9/2009)