IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE SATURDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2011 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 10634 of 2005(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- K.NARAYANANKUTTY, S/O.KUTTAN NAIR, AGED 47, SENIOR INSPECTOR, SOCIETY FOR PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (SPCA), PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.JAYABAL MENON SRI.P.K.SOYUZ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DIRECTORATE OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 3. CHIEF VETERINARY OFFICER, DISTRICT VETERINARY CENTRE, PALAKKAD. 4. SOCIETY FOR PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (SPCA), VETERINARY HOSPITAL CAMPUS, V.H.ROAD, PALGHAT-1, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 & R5 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.10634/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE STATEMENTS DTD. 23.9.1999 4TH RESPONDENT TO IST RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 24.2.1999 TO THE PETITIONER. P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 22.6.199 OF 3RD RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 27.3.2000 BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. P5:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP.23800/2000 DT.D 18.8.2000. P6:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 19.10.2000 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS OF 4TH RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2000-01. P8:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 21.2.05 OF IST RESPONDENT ADDRESS TO 2ND RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE REPORT OF 5TH RESPONDENT DTD 12.9.04. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE Tss A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.10634 of 2005 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P8, a notice dated 21/2/2005 communicated to the petitioner intimating him that an amount of Rs.78,000/- has to be recovered from his salary, which is said to have been paid against a court order as stated in a Vigilance Report. Petitioner also impugns the Vigilance Report Ext.P9 dated 12/08/2004, by which the Director of Vigilance & Anti- Corruption Bureau had intimated the Government that, on a surprise inspection by a Vigilance Officer of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau it was found that an amount of Rs.78,000/- was paid in excess to the petitioner towards salary which was against court orders, and hence the departmental action was recommended. 2. The petitioner had applied for long leave for a period of 5 years from 01/10/1996 and according to him he rejoined service before the expiry of the said period, on 01/01/1999. In Ext.P1 minutes of meeting held on 05/07/1999 the Managing Committee confirms that the petitioner has rejoined on W.P.C.No.10634/05 2 01/01/1999. 3. According to the petitioner, Exts.P8 and P9 are illegal and unsustainable as he rejoined service on 01/01/1999 and he has not drawn any excess salary and there was no court order against him as referred in Ext. P8 and P9. 4. Having gone through the averments in the writ petition and having heard the learned counsel for either parties, I am of the view that Ext.P8 on the face of it is bad in law as no show cause notice was issued nor was any explanation called for from the petitioner before issuing Ext. P8. Apart from that as contended by the petitioner there is no court order directing any such recovery. However, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and 5 contends that there is dispute regarding the date of rejoining and therefore the recovery is in accordance with law. According to him excess salary was paid to the petitioner. Whatever may be the situation, in the absence of any show cause notice calling for an explanation from the petitioner, before effecting recovery of any amount, Ext.P8 will not survive. 5. Since Ext.P9 is only a report submitted to the Government, it does not call for any interference, as of now. W.P.C.No.10634/05 3 Hence, the writ petition stands allowed with the following directions. i) Ext.P8 shall stand set aside. ii) It is open for 2nd respondent to initiate any fresh proceedings against the petitioner, if it is found that any amount that is wrongly paid, after complying with the principles of natural justice. (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr W.P.C.No.10634/05 4 W.P.C.No.10634/05 5