IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13409 of 2004(U)
1. P.K.KRISHNASWAMY, RESIDING AT
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD.
5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), PALAKKAD.
6. P.CHANDRASEKHARAN, FULL TIME MENIAL
For Petitioner :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :17/09/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P (C) No. 13409 OF 2004
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 17th day of September, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, former manager of the concerned school, is
mainly challenging Exts. P6 and P7 recovery proceedings (seeking to
realize the amount/salary stated as paid to the 6th respondent during
the period of the said respondent).
2. The sequence of events as described in the Writ Petition
shows that, the 6th respondent, while working as the full time menial
was placed under suspension for the period from 23.08.1998 till
29.11.1996, in connection with some misconduct. Subsequently, the
Government passed Ext. P1 order holding that the suspension of the
said employee beyond a period of one year was not sustainable under
any circumstances and accordingly, the 6th respondent was ordered to
be reinstated with effect from the date of expiry of one year of
suspension. It was also observed in Ext. P1 that the pay and
allowances which happened to be paid to the 6th respondent after the
said one year of suspension, were liable to be recovered from the
petitioner, who was the manager of the school.
W.P. (C) No. 13409 of 2004
: 2 :
3. After passing Ext. P1, it appears that departmental enquiry
was directed to be finalized as per the direction given by this Court in
OP 9108 of 1996. On completion of the enquiry, it was found that, the
charges levelled against the 6th respondent were wrong and
unsustainable. Accordingly, the said respondent was absolved of the
misconduct levelled against him and it was ordered that the period
spent by the 6th respondent on suspension from 23.8.94 to 29.1196
would be regularized, treating the said period as duty. Appropriate
direction was also given to pay arrears of salary to the incumbent and
to have the due amount recovered from the Manager, based on Ext. P1
Government Order.
4. When further coercive steps were taken for effecting recovery
from the petitioner as per Exts. P6 and P7, the petitioner approached
this Court by filing the present Writ Petition, also with some incidental
reliefs/prayers. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating
that the idea and understanding of the petitioner in support of the
contentions raised in the Writ Petition is not correct or sustainable.
With reference to Rule 67 (8) of Chapter XIV A KER, it is contended
that, there is no specific condition that the recovery could be effected
from ‘maintenance grant’. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the issue raised in the Writ Petition now stands confined
W.P. (C) No. 13409 of 2004
: 3 :
only to the course being pursued by the respondents without giving
credit to any amount already recovered/set off from the ‘maintenance
grant’ payable to the petitioner, against the amount actually to be
satisfied in respect of the liability involving the 6th respondent. It is also
pointed out that the 6th respondent subsequently retired from the
service, on attaining the age of superannuation and that he has already
been paid all the benefits by the Government/Department. It is further
brought to the notice of this Court that the ‘maintenance grant’ payable
to the petitioner, who was running the ‘aided school’, was not disbursed
in the years 1996-’97 to 2002-’03 presumably for the reason that it was
ordered to be set off in respect of the liability involving the 6th
respondent as ordered by the Government in Ext. P1. This being the
position, the petitioner is liable to satisfy only the balance amount, if
any, after setting off the ‘maintenance grant’ payable to the petitioner,
submits the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. A copy of the common judgment dated 20th November 2009
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A Nos. 328 and 417 of
2008 is also placed for consideration. The aforesaid appeal was
preferred by the petitioner, being aggrieved of the common verdict
passed by a learned Single Judge in O.P. Nos. 23143 & 34481 of 2002.
The original petition preferred by the petitioner/Manager challenging the
W.P. (C) No. 13409 of 2004
: 4 :
disciplinary proceedings was dismissed with cost; while the other Writ
Petition filed by the 6th respondent in respect of the concerned cause of
action was allowed with cost. The Writ Petition was mainly filed
challenging order imposing the cost. After considering the contentions
raised from either side, interference was declined and both the Writ
Appeals were dismissed, making it clear that, the respondents were at
liberty to have realised the cost. However, taking note of the specific
contentions of the appellant that the maintenance grant payable in
respect of the years 1996-’97 to 2002-’03 was actually not disbursed to
the appellant, it was observed in paragraph 4 as follows:
“4. The above said annexure would show that the
Government have declined to pay maintenance grant for
the years 1996-’97 to 2002-’03 by reason of the amounts
recoverable from the appellant. It is ordered that if any
amount payable to the appellant by way of maintenance
grant is adjusted or withheld by the State Government, the
Government shall give credit for that amount, while
computing the amount recoverable from him”.
By virtue of the above, the matter stands finalized. It goes without
saying that, since the ‘maintenance grant’ is not disbursed till date from
1996 -’97 (which is not sought to be controverted from the part of the
respondent State by filing any counter affidavit in this regard), only the
balance amount, if any, can be recovered from the petitioner..
W.P. (C) No. 13409 of 2004
: 5 :
6. In the above circumstances, the first respondent shall issue a
specific demand notice to the petitioner, if any further liability is there to
be satisfied, pointing out the quantum of ‘maintenance grant’ withheld
by the Government in respect of the different years. This shall be done
within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The petitioner shall satisfy the same within a period of one month from
the date of receipt of such communication. It will be open for the
concerned respondent to pursue further steps for realization of the due
amount; if any default is made in this regard.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd