IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 18296 of 2006(C)
1. KERALA POLICE ASSOCIATION,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME)
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN
Dated :02/01/2007
O R D E R
K.K.DENESAN, J
-------------------------------
W.P.(C)NO.18296 of 2006
-------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is an association of policemen in the service of the
Government of Kerala. They are in the rank of Sub Inspector of Police
and below and are working in various Police Stations in Idukki District.
In connection with their official duties, journeys were undertaken.
Since they were not provided with any conveyance by the department,
they had to make use of the public conveyance. They claim to have
undertaken journies using public conveyance and had preferred claims
for the grant of travelling allowance. Acting on those documents
travelling allowance was paid.
2. According to the respondents, the documents produced by
them in support of the expenses said to have been met for such
journies are not acceptable. It was found that some of the petitioners
were not eligible for travelling allowance and even in the case of those
who were found eligible, amounts admitted was in excess of their
entitlement. Respondents allege that the claim was allowed based on
bogus documents.
3. It appears that during the inspection conducted by the audit
party, certain irregularities were found out and based on the report
W.P.(C)No. 18296/2006 2
thus filed by the audit party, the third respondent issued Exts.P3, P4
and P5 orders showing the names of those who had availed travelling
allowance allegedly beyond their entitlement. Immediately, directions
were issued to the subordinate officers to recover from the salary of
the petitioners, the amounts shown against their names in Exts.P3, P4
and P5 orders. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this
Court espousing the cause of the members of the Association.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inferences
drawn by the audit party and that of the third respondent are not
factually correct. The authorities have not taken note of the peculiar
nature of the terrains in Idukki district, the non availability of ordinary
public conveyance during reasonable intervals and the compulsion on
the part of the officers to discharge their duties by undertaking
journeys using such conveyances which were readily available and the
expenses they had to incur in the peculiar circumstances. It is
contended that the individual officers against whom Exts.P3,P4 and P5
orders were issued could have brought to the notice of the third
respondent all relevant facts and show that they had not drawn any
amount in excess of their claim. But without issuing any notice, the
third respondent straight away passed the impugned orders.
Apprehending recovery from their monthly emoluments pursuant to
W.P.(C)No. 18296/2006 3
the above orders, this writ petition has been filed.
5. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the second
respondent justifying the stand taken by the department and the need
to effect recovery from the emoluments of the petitioners.
6. Having heard the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner
and the submissions made on behalf of the respondents, I feel that the
police constables and other officers ought to have been afforded an
opportunity to explain things from their stand point of view before the
impugned orders were passed. In the normal course, the impugned
orders are liable to be set aside for violation of the principles of natural
justice, because, the directions contained therein will result in civil
consequences to the members of the petitioner. However, I think the
same object can be achieved by directing the respondents to treat
Exts.P3, P4 and P5 orders as show cause notices to all those who are
adversely affected. They will have the right to file appropriate
representations before the third respondent. Exts.P3,P4 and P5 shall
not be treated as final orders. The representations shall be filed
within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Representations filed within the aforesaid time limit, shall be
entertained and considered in accordance with law and final decision
taken thereafter, as expeditiously as possible. Needless to state that
W.P.(C)No. 18296/2006 4
the recovery contemplated vide Exts.P3,P4 and P5 notices shall be
kept in abeyance until final decision is taken, as directed above.
W.P.(C) is disposed of as above.
K.K.DENESAN, JUDGE
css/
W.P.(C)No. 18296/2006 5