G.Ramesh vs. The District Manager

Facts

The petitioner, G. Ramesh, was appointed as a Salesman in a TASMAC shop in 2007. Following a Supreme Court directive, roadside TASMAC shops were closed, and he was transferred to another shop in 2017. During a surprise inspection on April 10, 2018, a shortfall of Rs. 19,32,760/- was discovered. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and other staff. Subsequently, the Supervisor and Additional Supervisor remitted the entire shortfall amount on April 12, 2018. The petitioner was placed under suspension on April 19, 2018, and a charge memo was issued on May 7, 2018. A departmental enquiry was conducted, and the Enquiry Officer recommended a penalty, GST, and 2% interest. The respondent accepted the report and issued an impugned memo on June 3, 2019, without providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, leading to the present writ petition.

Held

The Court held that, prima facie, the petitioner could not have a right to challenge the show cause notice issued by the respondent. It was of the view that if the petitioner was aggrieved, he could submit his explanation to the authorities along with all relevant materials. Therefore, the Court could not interfere with the show cause notice at that stage. However, considering the submissions of both parties, the Court allowed the petitioner to submit his explanation to the respondent within two weeks, placing all relevant materials to satisfy the authorities that the recovery amount had already been paid by other delinquents. The respondent was directed to consider this explanation and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter. The petitioner was also directed to submit his explanation to the impugned show cause notice within seven days, and the respondent was to consider it and pass orders on merits. Regarding subsistence allowance, the petitioner was directed to make a representation to the respondent, who would consider it and pass orders within two weeks.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 03.06.2019, which is stated to be a show cause notice, is amenable to challenge before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly in light of the decision in Vasan Publications (P) Ltd. Vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (C & R) Employees Provident Fund Organisation (2018 (4) CTC 283)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order, despite being termed a show cause notice, was issued without providing him an opportunity to present his case, especially considering that the shortfall amount had already been paid by other delinquents. He sought an opportunity to submit his explanation and for the respondent to consider that the recovery amount was already paid. Respondent's contention: The respondent contended that the impugned order was merely a show cause notice directing the petitioner and others to pay a specific amount and that such an order cannot be challenged at this stage, citing the Vasan Publications case. However, the respondent also fairly submitted that if the petitioner submitted an explanation, it would be considered in accordance with law.