Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

N Natarajan vs The Director Of Elementary Education And Others

Madras High Court|04 September, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :04.09.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN W.P.No.12006 of 2010
and
M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2010 and 1 to 1 of 2014
N.Natarajan .. Petitioner Vs
1. The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006.
2. The District Elementary Education Officer, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
3. The Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Uthangarai, Krishnagiri District. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the orders in proceeding Na.Ka.No.1030/A1/2010 dated 13.05.2010 passed by the 3rd respondent herein and quash them as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, being violative of rules and principles of natural justice.
For Petitioner :Mr.V.Thirupathi For Respondents :Mr.R.Govindasamy Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3 ORDER The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the orders in proceeding Na.Ka.No.1030/A1/2010 dated 13.05.2010 passed by the 3rd respondent herein and quash them as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, being violative of rules and principles of natural justice.
2. Challenging the order of recovery proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.1030/A1/2010 dated 13.05.2010, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed on 13.05.2010, without giving any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner for submitting his explanation. Therefore, the impugned order was passed without following the principles of natural justice and hence the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking to quash the above said impugned order.
4. Mr.R.Govindasamy, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 has filed a counter http://www.judis.nic.inaffidavit, wherein, it is stated that the impugned order was passed only based on the order passed by the Higher Authority concerned and there is no necessity to give opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. He further stated that the order was well considered and warranting no interference by this Court. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
5. I heard Mr.V.Thirupathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr.R.Govindasamy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and also perused the materials available on record.
6. It is an admitted fact that the order of recovery has been passed without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner or without calling for any explanation. On perusal of the impugned order, it is made clear that no opportunity has been given to the petitioner and without issuing show cause notice, the present impugned order has been passed for recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner.
7. The Apex Court has time and again reitertated the necessity of giving personal opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing appropriate orders. Admitedly, in this case, no such opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. Since the impugned order was passed by the 3rd respondent without following the principles of natural justice, the same is liable to be quashed.
8. In the result,
(a) The writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.1030/A1/2010 dated 13.05.2010 is quashed;
(b) The matter is remaned to the authority concerned to pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner;
(c) The said exercise shall be done within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
ub Index:yes/No 04.09.2017 (1/5) To
1. The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006.
2. The District Elementary Education Officer, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
3. The Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Uthangarai, Krishnagiri District.
M.V.MURALIDARAN, J.
ub
W.P.No.12006 of 2010
04.09.2017 (1/5)
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

N Natarajan vs The Director Of Elementary Education And Others

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
04 September, 2017
Judges
  • M V Muralidaran