S.Preasannakumari vs The Kerala State Financial … on 5 January, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 37219 of 2008(E)


1. S.PREASANNAKUMARI, W/O. DHANANJAYAN NAIR
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE MANAGER, THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL

3. MRS.KUSALAKUMARI, MANAGER,KSFE, MEDICAL

4. THE LIK AYUKTA CONSTITUTED UNDER

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN, SC, KSFE LTD.

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :05/01/2009

 O R D E R
                     ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
                -----------------------
                   W.P.(C).No. 37219/2008
               ------------------------
            Dated this the 5th day of January, 2009.

                          JUDGMENT

Petitioner is working as a Commercial Tax Officer.

According to the petitioner, she has given her salary

certificate in order to enable one Abubacker to avail of

chitty loan from the Kerala State Financial Enterprises.

Petitioner submits that misusing this salary certificate, she

had been shown as surety in four transactions between the

four subscribers and the KSFE. According to the petitioner,

the same has been done only with the connivance of the 3rd

respondent.

2. Petitioner states that she came to know of this, only

when the recovery proceedings were initiated by issuing

Ext.P2. It is stated that there upon the petitioner has moved

the 4th respondent by filing Ext.P3 complaint along with

Ext.P4 stay petition. Her grievance is that orders have not

WP(c).No.37219/08 2

been passed on Ext.P4 and that in the meanwhile recovery

pursuant to Ext.P2 is being continued.

3. Although the petitioner is seeking a direction to the

Lok Ayukta to consider Ext.P4 application to keep in abeyance

further proceedings for recovery pursuant to Ext.P2, I do not

think that the petitioner is justified in her prayer for keeping in

abeyance Ext.P2. This is for the reason that, even according to

the petitioner, she has agreed to be a surety in NCL 170/08,

for which according to her Ext.P1 confirmation of her salary

certificate has been given. Therefore the respondents are, at

any rate, entitled to recover from her salary, to liquidate the

liability incurred towards NCL 170/88.

In the aforesaid circumstances, particularly taking into

account the complaint of the petitioner that she has not given

her salary certificate for incurring liability in the remaining 3

transactions, I direct that, for a period of 2 months, the

amount recovered pursuant to Ext.P2 will be appropriated

towards the petitioner’s liability in NCL 170/08. In the

WP(c).No.37219/08 3

meanwhile, it will be open to the petitioner to move the 4th

respondent and obtain appropriate interlocutory orders

safeguarding her interest. It is clarified that, if the petitioner

does not obtain any interlocutory orders, it will be open to the

first respondent to recover the amount, as is being done now.

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/

WP(c).No.37219/08 4