AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Misra, J.—Petitioner has filed two writ petitions for quashing the proceedings S.M. No. 4958/87 T-1 dated 17-3-1989 and the
proceedings No. 216/91/T-7 dated 16-3-1995. Petitioner had joined the Public works Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu as Junior
Engineer on 1-11-82 and he was terminated from services on 31-8-87 as there was no vacancy. Subsequently, the Petitioner joined the service
under Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board on 27-5-91. The impugned proceedings dated 17-3-89 were initiated purportedly under
Rule 17(a) of The Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification & Control and Appeal) Rules on the allegation that the Petitioner had caused loss to
the Government to a tune of Rs. 1,05,961/- being the price of the materials which were found short during the tenure of the Petitioner (sic) Public
Works Department. The Petitioner (sic) stated that he has preferred appeal (sic) 18-12-89 to the second Respondent (sic) certain objections, but
no orders have passed. While the matter stood (sic) respondent, the Executive Engineer, Irukkankudi Reservoir Project by his proceedings dated
16-3-95 directed the Tahsildar, Kancheepuram to recover a sum of Rs. 1,10,798/- from the Petitioner as arrears of land revenue and accordingly
the Tahsildar issued proceedings dated 20-6-95 calling upon the Petitioner to deposit the amount. In WP. No. 9400/95, the Petitioner has prayed
for quashing the proceeding initiated under 17(a) of C.C. Rules and in the connected WP. No. 9401 of 1995, the Petitioner, has challenged the
notice issued by the Tahsildar relating to initiation of proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1964.
A common counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondents.
In the first writ petition, the contention of the Petitioner that proceedings under CCA. Rules cannot be initiated against the Petitioner as he was
ceased to be a Government servant after termination of his services in 1989 appears to be justified. There cannot be any doubt that the provisions
contained in C.C.A. Rules are applicable to the Government servants working under the State Government. By the time proceedings were initiated
against the Petitioner, he had admittedly ceased to be a Government servant. In the counter affidavit, this position is conceded and in such view of
the matter, initiation of disciplinary proceedings under 17(a) of C.C.A. Rules is liable to be quashed.
The subsequent writ petition relates to the question of realisation of amount from the Petitioner. It has been contended by the Petitioner that
since initiation of proceedings under C.C.A. is ab initio void as the Petitioner was not a Government servant at the time of initiation of such
proceedings, the subsequent proceedings for realisation of the amount is illegal. It is further contended that proceedings under The Tamil Nadu
Revenue Recovery Act cannot be initiated unless there is a prior determination of liability of the party in a properly constituted proceeding.
The Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act contains provisions enabling the Government to recover amount due from the particular person.
Section 52 of the Act provides as hereunder:
Similar process in case of other species of revenue, advances, fees, cesses, etc. - All arrears of revenue other than land revenue due to the
State Government all advances made by the State Government for cultivation or other purposes connected with the revenue, and all fees or other
dues payable by any person to or on behalf of the village servants employed in revenue or police duties, and all cesses lawfully imposed upon land
and all sums due to the State Government, including compensation for any loss or damage sustained by them in consequence of a breach of
contract, may be recovered in the same manner as arrears of land revenue under the provision of this Act, unless the recovery thereof shall have
been or may hereafter be otherwise specially provided for.
From the above said provision it is clear that all sums due to the State Government including compensation for any loss or damage sustained by
them in consequence of a breach of contract may be recovered in the same manner as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of the Act.
In the present case it is contended that there has been no determination of the liability of the Petitioner. It is no doubt true that under The Tamil
Nadu Revenue Recovery Act no Forum has been prescribed for determining the question of liability of the person. Only when the liability of a
person is determined and the amount recoverable is of the nature for which proceedings can be initiated under the Act, then such amount can be
recovered under the Act. Till the person''s liability is fixed, there is no scope for taking resort to the provisions contained in the Act. Nothing has
been mentioned in the counter-affidavit indicating that the liability of the Petitioner has been determined either by any Court of law or in other
process know to law. In the absence of such determination, taking resort to proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act appears to
be premature. In such view of the matter the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act against the Petitioner cannot be continued.
However, it is made clear that in case the liability of the Petitioner is determined and it is found that any amount is due from the Petitioner,
appropriate steps can be taken for recovery of the same in accordance with law. Subject to the aforesaid observation, both the writ petitions are
allowed without any order as to costs.