IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1658 of 2006(V)
1. LUCY.T.I,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION
4. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
5. THE PRINCIPAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.A.CHACKO
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :05/01/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.1658 of 2006 (V)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 5th day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P1 order dated
29/11/2005 fixing liability on the petitioner, who retired as the
Principal of Government Higher Secondary School, Edappal on
31/05/2003.
2. Prior to her retirement, while the petitioner was working
as the Principal of Government Higher Secondary School,
Chavakkad, disciplinary proceedings were initiated resulting in
Ext.P3 order dated 11/07/2003 imposing a punishment of barring
of one increment for one year without cumulative effect.
Subsequently, by Ext.P1 order dated 29/11/2005, liability of the
petitioner has been fixed and it is challenging Ext.P1 order, the writ
petition is filed.
3. A reading of Ext.P1 shows that three liabilities have been
fixed against the petitioner which shall be dealt with in the order in
which it is fixed.
WP(C) No.1658/2006
-2-
4. The first liability fixed is that through the Guruvayur
Municipality, the petitioner was given an advance of Rs.40,000/- for
maintenance of the school building, and only Rs.18,494/- was
fixed. The suggestion is that the differential amount was
misappropriated. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that by Ext.P5 agreement between the Principal and the Officials of
the Parents Teachers Association (PTA), the maintenance work was
entrusted to the PTA. It is stated that maintenance work was carried
out by the PTA spending its own resources and that thereafter,
when by Ext.P7, the PTA requested for payment of Rs.40,000/-
spent by it, the petitioner released the full amount of Rs.40,000/-
received by her as advance. It is contended that the allegation that
the petitioner misappropriated the amount is incorrect.
5. However, the primary duty to spend the amount was that
of the petitioner. This was coupled with the duty to ensure that the
amount is paid only after being satisfied that the amount was
actually spent for maintenance purpose. In this writ petition, there
is absolutely no material to indicate that before the amount was
allegedly released to the PTA, the petitioner had any material to be
satisfied that the PTA had in fact expended the amount. If that be
WP(C) No.1658/2006
-3-
so, the petitioner cannot rely on Ext.P7 alone and justify the alleged
payment made to the PTA. For that reason, I cannot accept the
contention of the petitioner and the first liability fixed has to be
sustained.
6. The second liability fixed is that there was no vouchers
for having spent Rs.13,150/- paid by the Guruvayur Municipality
and that there was nothing to show that the expenditure allegedly
incurred was accepted by the Guruvayur Municipality. Here also, the
suggestion is that this amount was misappropriated. However, the
learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Ext.P8
which shows that the petitioner had tendered account of the amount
expended by her and that the Secretary of the Municipality has
acknowledged receipt of such account by an endorsement made on
Ext.P8. There is no material to indicate that Ext.P8 was rejected by
the Municipality. If that be so, there is absolutely no justification for
fixing the liability of Rs.13,150/- on the petitioner.
7. The third liability fixed is that by the time punishment
was imposed on the petitioner by Ext.P3, the petitioner having
retired from service, she is liable to refund an amount equal for an
increment received by her for one year. Admittedly, punishment in
WP(C) No.1658/2006
-4-
question was imposed only on 11/07/2003, whereas the petitioner
was already retired from service on 31/03/2003. On the cessation
of employment by retirement of employees, disciplinary
proceedings can be continued only for the purposes mentioned in
the Rules. There is no Rule enabling imposition of punishment,
once an employee is retired from service. In this case, this precisely
is what is happened. Therefore, the recovery of incremental amount
already paid is impermissible. Therefore, the third liability fixed on
the petitioner also cannot be sustainable.
Accordingly, the liability fixed on the petitioner, except to the
extent the liability of Rs.21,506/- has been fixed, will stand set
aside, and the respondents are directed to disburse the amount
withheld from the petitioner’s terminal benefits as above. This shall
be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months
of production of a copy of this judgment.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg