IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11111 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ANNIE ABRAHAM, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT (RETD.), OFFICE OF THE ASST.EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KUMBLA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, RESIDING AT PUSHPAMANGALAM, VENCHEMPU P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. T.R.SATHEESAN, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT (RETD.),OFFICE OF THE ASST.EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KUMBLA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KARTHIKA GARDENS, KUNNUMPURAM, THRIKKAKARA P.O., KOCHI-21. 3. R.MOHANAN, FORMER UPPER DIVISION CLERK, OFFICE OF THE ASST.EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KUMBLA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, NOW WORKING AS UPPER DIVISION CLERK, IN TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SMT.DHANYA CHANDRAN SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KASARAGOD. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KUMBALA AT BADIADKA, KASARAGOD. * ADDL. R3 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 AS PER ORDER IN IA.5025/2010 DT 6-4-2010) GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 11111 of 2010 L ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners 1 and 2 have already retired from service and the 3rd petitioner is continuing in service. Earlier, the 2nd respondent herein and the Senior Accounts Officer then attached to the office of the Accountant General were held as liable for the delay in disbursement of the pensionary benefits to the plaintiff in O.S.No.187/2000 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kasaragod. Ext.P1 is the copy of the judgment in the said suit and Ext.P2 is the copy of the judgment in A.S.No.11/2003 of the Sub Court, Kasaragod. Ext.P1 would reveal that the then Senior Accounts Officer attached to the office of the Accountant General and respondents 1 and 2 herein were respectively defendants 2 to 4 in the O.S. The appeal filed by the said defendants was dismissed as per Ext.P2 judgment. Later, the petitioners are issued with Exts.P3, P6, P8 and P10 show cause notices as to why liability shall not be fixed on them for the aforesaid lapse. On receipt of the show cause notices, they have submitted Exts.P4, WPC.11111/2010 : 2 : P5, P7, P9 and P11 replies. The grievance of the petitioners is that without considering the objections, the 1st respondent has unilaterally saddled the petitioners with the liability as per Ext.P12. The main contention of the petitioners is that the 1st respondent should not have considered the issue involved in this matter as he was one of the defendants against whom a decree was passed as is obvious from Exts.P1 and P2. The action on the part of the 1st respondent in considering and passing Ext.P12 order cannot be sustained in the said circumstances, it is submitted. 2. A perusal of Exts.P1 and P2 would reveal that the 1st respondent, who passed Ext.P12, was one of the defendants in O.S.No.187/2000 before the Munsiff Court, Kasaragod. It is obvious from Exts.P1 and P2 that respondents 1 and 2 herein, along with another, were held liable for the delay in disbursement of pensionary benefits. Therefore, in the light of Exts.P1 and P2, there cannot be any justification for the 1st respondent to saddle the liability on the petitioners. It violates the principle that no one can be a judge on his own case. He cannot absolve himself and the other defendants and then saddle the petitioners with the WPC.11111/2010 : 3 : liability arising out of Exts.P1 and P2. Accordingly, Ext.P12 is set aside. However, it is made clear that this will not stand in the way of the additional 3rd respondent in considering the issue in terms of Exts.P1 and P2 and passing appropriate orders with notice to the concerned parties, including the petitioners. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) aks