THE MANAGING DIRECTOR vs N. Bhagavathsingh

W.A.NO.3047 OF 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.09.2026
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
W.A.NO.3047 OF 2023
AND
CMP NO.25269 OF 2023
1.The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board
No.31, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Executive Engineer
Rural Water Supply Division
Ganesh Nagar, Near Law College Hostel,
Near Mattuthavani Bus Terminal,
Madurai – 625 007.
3.The Executive Engineer
Project Division
No.2/2, ASS Soundarapandian Road,
Virudhunagar – 626 001.
4.The Executive Engineer
Rural Water Supply
Ex-Servicemen Building,
Collectorate Complex,
Ramnad – 623 503. … Appellants
Vs.
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:46:08 pm )

W.A.NO.3047 OF 2023
N.Bhagavathsingh
S/o. R.Nambupitchai
th
No.133, 6 Street,
Anugraha Satelite Complex,
Navasakthi Township,
Periyakattupalayam, Cuddalore District. … Respondent

PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
praying to set aside the order dated 30.01.2023 passed in W.P.No.37275
of 2016.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Ravindran
Senior Counsel
for Mrs.S.Mekhala
For Respondent : Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar
for Mr.P.Arumugavel
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam, J.)
The Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board is the
appellant before this Court. The respondent filed a writ petition
challenging the order of recovery passed based on the audit objections to
recover the financial loss occurred to the Board on account of missing
materials. The writ court allowed the writ petition applying the ratio laid
down in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)
reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.
Page No.2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:46:08 pm )

W.A.NO.3047 OF 2023
2.The learned Senior Counsel Mr.S.Ravindran, appearing on
behalf of the appellants, would mainly contend that the said judgment
cannot be applied to the present case, as this is not a case of recovery
arising out of wrong fixation of pay or excess payment of salary. Thus,
the application of the judgment cited supra by the Writ Court is incorrect.
He would further contend that, during audit verification, the authorities
found that certain materials in the Depot were missing and objections
were raised. Since the said objections were not ratified, an order of
recovery was issued to recover the financial loss caused to the Board.
Thus, there is no infirmity in recovering the financial loss in such
circumstances and no enquiry need to be conducted.
3.Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent would oppose by stating that the alleged missing of
materials, even as per the impugned order, took place in the year 1988.
The respondent, who was holding the post of Assistant Executive
Engineer, retired from service on 31.12.2012. The recovery order was
passed one year after the retirement, without conducting any enquiry and
therefore, the order impugned cannot be sustained.
Page No.3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:46:08 pm )

W.A.NO.3047 OF 2023
4.This Court is of the considered view that applying the ratio
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab
Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 may not
be relevant in respect of the facts in the present case. However, the facts
would show that the alleged missing materials were found from the year
1988 onwards. However, audit objection was raised at a later point of
time. Meanwhile, the respondent was allowed to retire from service on
31.12.2012 without prejudice to the actions initiated based on the audit
objections. Further, show cause notice was issued in the year 2015.
Thereafter, the recovery order was passed. The determination of
financial loss is not assessed in the manner known to law. Dispensing
with the enquiry would cause prejudice to the interest of the respondent,
who was holding the post of Assistant Executive Engineer.
5.No doubt, financial loss caused directly on account of
missing materials may be recovered from the Officer, who was in-charge
of the Depot or in-charge of the materials concerned. In such
circumstances, show cause notice would be sufficient calling explanation,
based on which, an order of recovery may be issued. However, in certain
cases where the material losses cannot be determined due to the
Page No.4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:46:08 pm )

W.A.NO.3047 OF 2023
complex nature of the facts and efflux of time, then enquiry need not be
dispensed with, since, in the absence of an enquiry, it would not be
possible to fix responsibility on the officials concerned. In normal cases,
where financial losses are identified, such losses are recovered
proportionately from the officials who are all responsible for the missing
materials.
6.In the present case, missing materials were not identified
from the year 1988 and till the date of retirement of the respondent, no
order of recovery was passed. After three years from the date of
retirement, show cause notice was issued. One cannot expect that an
officer, after three years from the date of his/her retirement, will be in a
position to give an effective explanation, defending his/her case in
respect of missing materials of the Board from the year 1988 onwards. In
such circumstances, enquiry has to be conducted to ascertain the correct
facts and to fix responsibility, which was not done in the present case.
Therefore, though the writ Court arrived at the right conclusion,
application of law and the judgment cited supra, are incorrect.
Page No.5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:46:08 pm )

W.A.NO.3047 OF 2023
7.In view of the facts and circumstances, the decision of the
writ court setting aside the impugned order of recovery is confirmed.
Consequently, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.M.S., J.] [K.G.R., J.]

01.09.2026
Index : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
TK
To
1.The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board
No.31, Kamarajar Salai, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Executive Engineer
Rural Water Supply Division
Ganesh Nagar, Near Law College Hostel,
Near Mattuthavani Bus Terminal, Madurai – 625 007.
3.The Executive Engineer
Project Division
No.2/2, ASS Soundarapandian Road,
Virudhunagar – 626 001.
4.The Executive Engineer
Rural Water Supply
Ex-Servicemen Building,
Collectorate Complex,
Ramnad – 623 503.
Page No.6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:46:08 pm )

W.A.NO.3047 OF 2023
Page No.7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:46:08 pm )

W.A.NO.3047 OF 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J.
TK

W.A.NO.3047 OF 2023
01.09.2026
Page No.8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/09/2026 05:46:08 pm )