The Original Application in O.A.No.119 of 2003 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") is the present writ petition.
2. Heard the submissions made by Mr.K.Chandrasekaran learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya, learned Additional 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 legal representatives, who are now the petitioners.
4.Mr.J.Jones joined as a Lower Division Clerk in Thindivanam Municipality on 14.03.1967. He worked in different Municipalities before he reached the age of superannuation on 31.07.2002. In the meantime, he also gain promotions. While he was serving in Thindivanam Municipality, he was retired from service on 31.07.2002.
5.While he was serving as a Revenue Inspector in Villupuram Municipality, the Commissioner of Villupuram Municipality issued charge sheet dated 04.06.2002, alleging that he failed to recover the Property Tax amount of Rs.81,491/- for the year 1991-92 and the Professional Tax of Rs.40,716/- for the year 1991-92 and in total, he caused a loss of Rs.1,21,657/- to the Department. However, no final order was passed. The Villupuram Municipality also issued another charge sheet dated 09.07.2002, alleging that the petitioner failed to collect the Property Tax of Rs.2,14,012/- for the years 1986-87 to 1989-90, Professional Tax of Rs.1,57,706/- for the years 1986-87 to 1989-90 and the lease amount of Rs.45,855/- for the years 1993-94 to 1994-95. It is alleged that he committed misconduct in not collecting the aforesaid amounts.
6.A similar charge sheet dated 11.07.2002 was issued by the Commissioner of Chidambaram Municipality, alleging that he failed to collect the lease amount for the period of 1995-96 and 1996-97 and also 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 of Rs.22,675/- to the Department.
7.In all the charge sheets, no final orders were passed and no further proceedings took place.
8.While so, the petitioner attained the age of Superannuation on 31.07.2002 and he was permitted to retire from service.
9.In these circumstances, the impugned order was passed by the sixth respondent stating that the petitioner is permitted to retire from service, while remunerating the responsible for the non-collection of Taxes of Rs.1,11,515/- and the lease amount of Rs.45,855/- from Villupuram Municipality and Rs.22,675/- towards lease amount for Chidambaram Municipality. In view of the impugned order, Mr.J.Jones was not given the DCRG and the other terminal benefits in full.
10.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner could not be blamed for the non recovery of Tax dues and lease amount. Further, the impugned order was passed, fixing the responsibility for non-recovery of tax dues and lease amount, without conducting any enquiry. In any event, the learned counsel submits that the matter is wholly covered by the decision of this court in Mr.N.Mani v. The Commissioner, Villupuram Municipality reported in 2006(1) CTC 632. In the said decision, the following passage in the decision of this court in V.Nagarajan v.Commissioner, Salem Municipality, Salem reported in 1988 WLR 38 is referred and the same is extracted here under:-
"... The respondent in the present case seemed to have acted against the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Municipal Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, but withheld recovery process on account of stay by the Government. Now, by virtue of the Government vacating the stay, the process of recovery from the salary of the petitioner is being set in motion by the present order of the respondent. It is only in that context a writ of Mandamus is being asked for by the petitioner, to forbear the respondent from recovering from the salary of the petitioner, the time barred profession taxes. Basically, there are no grounds at all to pin down the liability on the petitioner, as now being done. The proceedings taken in this behalf are the result of a misconception of the legal position. They have to stand ignored and cannot be implemented. Taking note of the ratio of this Court, I have to hold that the petitioner cannot be mulcted with liability on this account...."
The aforesaid decision reported in 2006(1) CTC 632 (Mr.N.Mani v. The Commissioner, Villupuram Municipality) also recorded the proceedings of the Director of Municipal Administration dated 03.12.1996 in para 3 of the Judgment and the same is also extracted hereunder:
"3. The above said position is also made clear from the communication of the Director of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5, addressed to All Regional Directors of Municipal Administration, in Roc.No.75380/96/R1 dated 3.12.1996, which reads as under:
" The Municipal Employees Associations are demanding cancellation of recovery orders for time barred arrears among other things. In the meeting convened on 08.07.1994 in the chambers of Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department to discuss with the office bearers of the Rural Development and Municipal Employees Association Federation the following decision was taken on the above demand:
" The Director of Municipal Administration has already granted time upto 3.9.1994. Time barred arrears need not be recovered, from the DORG etc., from the retired employees,"
2. To pursue further action in this regard, Government considered that proposal to write off time barred arrears due to Municipalities may be taken up after the elections to the Municipalities and after all the Municipal Councils pass necessary resolutions in this regard, Government have now called for a consolidated report in this regard, in the letter cited.
3.Hence, I request you to instruct all the Municipal Commissioners within your jurisdiction to place the matter before the Municipal Council and to send a detailed report along with the copy of the resolution, in duplicate. After getting the same, I request you to send a consolidated report to this office; along with copies of resolution passed by the Municipal Councils, so as to send a report to Government. As the matter involves the lon-standing demand of the Municipal Employees, I request you to expedite your report.
Sd/-V.Pitchai, for Director."
11.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order.
12.In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
AM To
1.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.