T.Dharmaraj v. The Director of Animal Husbandry & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated 5.2.2010CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARWrit Petition No.33694 of 2006 T.Dharmaraj. ... Petitioner Vs1.The Director of Animal Husbandry, DMS Compound, Chennai-6.2.The Regional Joint Director of Animal Husbandry, VOC Nagar, Thanjavur 613 001. ... Respondents Original Application No.9799 of 1998 was filed before the TamilNadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench praying to call forrecords relating to proceedings of the second respondent made inNa.Ka.No.25980/F/97 dated 15.10.98 to quash the same and consequentlydirect the respondents to settle all accrued benefits with interestat 24% per annum from the date on which the same fell due till thedate of realisation. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunalwas abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as WritPetition. For petitioner : Mr.L.ChandrakumarFor respondents : Mr.B.Vijay, Government Advocate. ----- O R D E ROriginal Application No.9799 of 1998 was filed before the TamilNadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench praying to call forrecords relating to proceedings of the second respondent made inNa.Ka.No.25980/F97 dated 15.10.98 to quash the same and consequentlydirect the respondents to settle all accrued benefits with interestat 24% per annum from the date on which the same fell due till thedate of realisation. Since the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as WritPetition. 2. The applicant/petitioner, was appointed as VeterinaryAssistant Surgeon in 1977 and was promoted as Assistant VeterinarySurgeon/Assistant Director, Orathanadu in the year 1997. It isstated that in the Hospital, there is a quarters attached to the postof Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. According to the petitioner,quarters allotted to him was not for the Grade IV officers to whichthe petitioner was appointed. He did not take possession. There wasno order of allotment. However, on 15.10.1998, second respondentRegional Joint Director of Animal Husbandry passed an order directingthe recovery of Rs.14,612/- stating that it is the rent for theperiod from 31.3.97 to 30.9.98 and the said amount should berecovered from the pay. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned orderdated 15.10.1998 has been passed without putting the petitioner onnotice as to why the said amount is demanded by way of recovery. Itis also violative of principles of natural justice inasmuch as noopportunity was granted to the petitioner to submit his explanation.The O.A. was admitted in the year 1998 and interim stay of recoveryorder was granted and it continues till date.4. Heard Mr.B.Vijay, learned Government Advocate appearing forthe respondents. He pointed out the reply affidavit and stated thatthe petitioner should have used the quarters and, therefore, therecovery is in order. 5. Whatever be the reason, on the face the impugned order, a sumof Rs.14,612/- has been ordered to be recovered stating that it isthe rent for the period from 31.3.1997 to 30.9.1998. It was notstated whether on what basis the recovery order has been passed. Inany event, in the reply affidavit, the stand taken by the respondentsis that a show cause notice was issued. But, however, therespondents are not able to produce any such document. The impugnedorder does not give any reason, however detailed reasons were set outin the reply affidavit.6. It is trite law that the case of the respondents cannot beimproved on the basis of the counter-affidavit or the writtensubmissions vide Mohinder Singh Gill and another – v. - The ChiefElection Commissioner, New Delhi and others AIR 1978 Supreme Court851 and S.N.Mukherjee – v. - Union of India (1990)4 SCC 594. In para8 of the decision in AIR 1978 SC 851 reads as follows:-"8. The second equally relevant matter isthat when a statutory functionary makes an orderbased on certain grounds, its validity must bejudged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape ofaffidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order badin the beginning may, by the time it comes tocourt on account of a challenge, get validated byadditional grounds later brought out. We mayhere draw attention to the observations of Bose,J., in Gordhandas Bhani (AIR 1952 SC 16)(atp.18):"Public orders publicly made, inexercise of a statutory authority cannotbe construed in the light ofexplanations subsequently given by theofficer making the order of what hemeant, or of what was in his mind, orwhat he intended to do. Public ordersmade by public authorities are meant tohave public effect and are intended toaffect the acting and conduct of thoseto whom they are addressed and must beconstrued objectively with reference tothe language used in the order itself".Orders are not like old wine becoming better asthey grow older."Para 36 in (1990)4 SCC 594 reads thus:-"36. Reasons, when recorded by anadministrative authority in an order passed by itwhile exercising quasi-judicial functions, wouldno doubt facilitate the exercise of itsjurisdiction by the appellate or supervisoryauthority. But the other considerations, referredto above, which have also weighed with this Courtin holding that an administrative authority mustrecord reasons for its decision, are of no lesssignificance. These considerations show that therecording of reasons by an administrativeauthority serves a salutary purpose, namely, itexcludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures adegree of fairness in the process of decisionmaking. The said purpose would apply equally toall decisions and its application cannot beconfined to decisions which are subject to appeal,revision or judicial review. In our opinion,therefore, the requirement that reasons berecorded should govern the decisions of anadministrative authority exercising quasi-judicialfunctions irrespective of the fact whether the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ decision is subject to appeal, revision onjudicial review. It may, however, be added thatit is not required that the reasons should be aselaborate as in the decision of a court of law.The extent and nature of the reasons would dependon particular facts and circumstances. What isnecessary is that the reasons are clear andexplicit so as to indicate that the authority hasgiven due consideration to the points incontroversy. The need for recording of reasonsis greater in a case where the order is passed atthe original stage."7. In such view of the matter, since the impugned proceedings isin violation of principles of natural justice and since noopportunity was granted to the petitioner to give his explanation tothe demand and it does not state the reasons, the proceedings areliable to be set aside. Accordingly it is set aside. Therespondents, however, are at liberty to proceed in accordance withlaw, if there are reasons to do so. The Writ Petition is orderedaccordingly. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarts To1. The Director of Animal Husbandry, DMS Compound, Chennai-6.2. The Regional Joint Director of Animal Husbandry, VOC Nagar, Thanjavur 613 001. 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO 81371 cc To Mr.L.Chandrakumar, Advocate, SR.7157 W.P.No.33694 of 2006JP(CO)sra 12.02.2010