Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. It has been stated that the petitioner rice Mill had entered into an agreement with the first respondent Corporation, for being a hulling agent for the purpose of hulling the paddy supplied by the first respondent Corporation. The agreement was to be in force for a period of five years. As such, the petitioner rice Mill has been carrying on the hulling works from the year, 2006. While so, on 17.6.2008, there was an inspection of the petitioner rice Mill by the vigilance cell of the first respondent Corporation. However, no notice had been issued to the petitioner rice Mill before the inspection had been done, nor was it informed about the shortage in stock. However, the first respondent Corporation had stopped supplying paddy to the petitioner rice Mill, for the purpose of hulling.
3. It has been further stated that subsequent to the inspection conducted in respect of the petitioner rice Mill, the second respondent, who was holding the post of Deputy Manager, Quality Control, and who was directly responsible for the quality of rice had been suspended from service, on 30.6.2008. Later, by the charge memo, dated 19.7.2008, charges had been levelled against the second respondent, stating that he had colluded with the various hulling agents and that he had failed to discharge his duties, sincerely and honestly.
4. After the lapse of six months a show cause notice, dated 16.12.2008, had been issued to the petitioner rice Mill, on behalf of the first respondent Corporation, as to why the petitioner rice Mill should not be 'black listed' for the alleged irregularity in supplying poor quality rice. An explanation, dated 30.12.2008, had been submitted on behalf of the petitioner rice Mill. Thereafter, no further action had been initiated against the petitioner rice Mill.
5. In the meantime the second respondent's suspension came to be revoked. However, an enquiry officer had been appointed to hold an enquiry, in respect of the charges levelled against the second respondent. After the enquiry had been completed, the enquiry officer had come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the second respondent had been proved. At that stage the second respondent had been appointed as the Regional Manager-in-charge, of Virudunagar region. Taking advantage of his position, the second respondent had called for the records relating to the charges alleged against the petitioner rice Mill and had issued the impugned proceedings, dated 28.5.2009, black listing the petitioner rice Mill, contrary to the principles of natural justice. The act of the second respondent would also constitute bias since, it had been alleged that the second respondent had colluded with the petitioner rice Mill in supplying poor quality rice.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order, dated 28.5.2009, is bad in law, as it has been passed by the second respondent due to his bias against the petitioner rice Mill. When the second respondent had been charged, along with the petitioner rice Mill, for having committed certain serious irregularities, it would not have been appropriate for the second respondent to pass the impugned order against the petitioner rice Mill, especially, when the charges levelled against the second respondent stood proved.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if the impugned order, dated 28.5.2009, is set aside and if the first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders, based on the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, on 16.12.2008, and taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner, on 30.12.2008. He had also submitted that no fresh opportunity need be given to the petitioner, nor any fresh enquiry is needed. He had also submitted that the respondent Corporation need not supply any paddy for the purpose of hulling, till final orders are passed by the first respondent. Nor would the petitioner rice Mill make any further claim, merely, due to the fact that the impugned order, dated 28.5.2009, has been set aside.
8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and since no counter affidavit has been filed, till date, denying the averments made on behalf of the petitioner rice Mill, the impugned order, dated 28.5.2009, is set aside. However, it is made clear that it is open to the first respondent to pass appropriate orders, based on the show cause notice, dated 16.12.2008, issued to the petitioner rice Mill and the explanation, dated 30.12.2008, submitted on behalf of the petitioner rice Mill. It is also made clear that no further opportunity need be given to the petitioner rice Mill and no fresh enquiry is required. Further, the petitioner rice Mill would not be entitled to any privileges or rights, including the supply of paddy by the respondent Corporation, for the purpose of hulling. Further, the first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders, as stated above, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
csh To The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.
Rep. By its Regional Manager, Virudunagar Region, Virudunagar.