College Superintendent Gets Chance To Explain Before Officials Decide If He Is Liable For ₹8.75 Lakh Excess Pension: Madras HC

In brief

The question

Whether the challenged notice could be sustained where the petitioner alleged that no proper enquiry had been conducted to determine his responsibility for the excess pension payment.

The court held

The writ petition was closed, with liberty to the petitioner to submit an explanation to the notice.

It also directed

The respondents were directed to proceed in accordance with the directions in W.P.(MD) No. 23541 of 2015, dated 19 June 2019, after providing due opportunity to the petitioner and other concerned officials.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.

01Facts

The petitioner, a Superintendent at H.H. Rajas College, challenged a notice dated 24 June 2025 seeking recovery from officials, including him, in connection with excess pension allegedly paid to a retired Tamil Lecturer, K. Muniappan.

p. 2

The respondents stated that a 2015 inspection found an excess payment of ₹8,75,074 and that, in an earlier writ petition brought by the family pensioner, the Court had quashed recovery from her and directed an enquiry into responsibility, with proportionate recovery from officials found responsible after due action.

pp. 3–4

The petitioner contended that the notice had been issued without the enquiry and assignment of responsibility required by that earlier order.

p. 4

02Issues

i.Whether the challenged notice could be sustained where the petitioner alleged that no proper enquiry had been conducted to determine his responsibility for the excess pension payment.

p. 4

ii.Whether further proceedings against the petitioner and other officials were required to follow the directions in the earlier writ petition and provide them an opportunity to respond.

p. 4

03Law Applied

The Court relied on its earlier order in W.P.(MD) No. 23541 of 2015, dated 19 June 2019, which quashed the recovery order against the family pensioner, directed that pension be fixed and paid under the applicable rules and Government orders, and required an enquiry into the excess payment.

pp. 3–4

It further directed that, if lapse, negligence, or dereliction of duty were found, suitable action, including proportionate recovery, should be taken against responsible officials.

pp. 3–4

In the present case, the Court required further proceedings to comply with those directions and to afford the petitioner and other concerned officials due opportunity.

p. 4

04Reasoning

The Court did not determine whether the petitioner was responsible for the excess payment or whether recovery from him was justified.

p. 4

Given the petitioner’s contention that responsibility had not been fixed through the enquiry required by the earlier order, the Court directed the respondents to proceed consistently with that order and after giving the petitioner and other officials an opportunity to be heard.

p. 4