IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 15022 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SAJI VARGHESE, HEADMASTER, M.I.S.M. UP SCHOOL, KUNDILPARAMBU, PENGAD, VENGARA SUB EDUCATIONAL DISTRICT RESIDING AT: HAFZA QTS., KUTTOOR NORTH PO, KUNNUMPURAM, VIA., A.R.NAGAR, PIN:676 305. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SMT.SMITHA GEORGE SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SRI.M.H.HANIS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI A.J.VARGHESE FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN,J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15022 of 2008 L -------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the Headmaster of M.I.S.M. UP School, Kundilparambu, Pengad in Vengara Sub Educational District. Ext.P1 proceedings dated 9.1.2008 were initiated by the second respondent, the Assistant Educational Officer, pursuant to an audit conducted by the Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram. As per Ext.P1, it is seen that the grant total of the amount shown as objections is Rs.35,046.75. The petitioner alleges that without further notice and without any further proceedings, Ext.P2 order dated 28.3.2008 was passed by the Assistant Educational Officer, fixing the liability of the petitioner at Rs.25,598.45. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to quash Exts.P1 and P2 and for a direction forbearing the respondents from enforcing Exts.P1 and P2. The contention of the petitioner is that before fixing the liability, the petitioner has not afforded an effective opportunity of being heard. However, it is stated in the Writ Petition itself thus - “True her objection to the audit report has been taken note of. But, whether or not the audit report is accepted to fix the liability on her has not been intimated to her any time.” 2. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated, inter alia, as follows:- The petitioner has not maintained the records properly including registers relating to sanjayka accounts where money transaction is involved. Hence, on the basis of the complaints from the Parents WP(C) No.15022/2008 2 Teachers Association and others, the Assistant Educational Officer conducted audit of the accounts in respect of the school for the period from 1.1.1989 to 31.12.2003. The Deputy Director of Education has also conducted a special audit during the period from 17.6.2004 to 19.6.2004 and the report was forwarded to the Assistant Educational Officer. It is stated that only a partial reply was received from the petitioner even after lapse of two years. Major irregularities are involved in sanjayka scheme, special fee utilisation, etc. It is also stated that on repeated enquiry, the petitioner reported on 12.9.2007 that the records of sanjayka for the period from 1983 to 1990 could not be traced out. It is alleged that as the Headmistress of the school, the petitioner failed to maintain the records in respect of money transactions involving lakhs of rupees. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that a rectification report was received from the petitioner on 15.3.2008 in which there was no acceptable reply. The petitioner has not made any explanation as to whether sanjayka records for the period from 1983 to 1990 are traced out or not, even when she submitted a reply dated 14.3.2008. Therefore, the liability was fixed on the petitioner and Ext.P2 notice was issued as per the direction issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram. It is alleged that the petitioner was dragging the matter for about four years without rectifying the defects or by making a proper reply. The petitioner is bound to refund the excess expenditure over and above the admissible amount and for the same, according to the respondents, no special notice is required. WP(C) No.15022/2008 3 3. The amount shown in Ext.P1 proceedings is not the amount that is shown in Ext.P2 order. How the amount of Rs.35,046.75 was reduced to Rs.25,598.45 is not explained. Ext.P2 order also does not indicate that a personal hearing was conducted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that Ext.P2 can be taken as a notice and an opportunity can be afforded to the petitioner to make a reply to Ext.P2. Appropriate orders can be passed by the Assistant Educational Officer after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows:- (1) Ext.P2 shall be treated as a notice. (2) The petitioner shall be entitled to submit a reply to Ext.P2 with all relevant details and with reference to the relevant documents and records. (3) The petitioner shall explain how the records relating to sanjayka could not be traced out. It is made clear that the whole burden of proof in respect of the same shall be on the petitioner. WP(C) No.15022/2008 4 (4) After affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the Assistant Educational Officer shall pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from today. (5) It is made clear that a notice shall be issued to the petitioner, fixing the date for filing the reply, granting at least ten days time to make a reply. Thereafter, a hearing shall be conducted on a date intimated to the petitioner. (6) The petitioner shall not seek any adjournment in respect of the date fixed for submitting the reply on in respect of the date of hearing. (7) Till fresh orders are passed by the Assistant Educational Officer, no recovery proceedings shall be initiated on the basis of Ext.P2. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. cks