IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16294 of 2006(M) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- P.K. KUMARAN, 'SREYAS', MARUTHAMANIPALLY, PAYAPALLY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. (HEADMASTER, (RETIRD) GOVT.H.S.S., CHERKALA CENTRAL, KASARAGODE). BY MS.M.R.SREELATHA, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) KASARAGODE. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), TRIVANDRUM. BY MS. T. B. REMANY, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO R3. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.16294/2006 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 17.10.2003 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P2 : COPY OF the LETTER DTD. 12.4.2004 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P3 : COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE PRINCIPAL BY THE SCHOOL BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P4 : COPY OF the LETTER DTD.18.8.2004 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P5 : COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 14.12.2005 OF the 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P6 : COPY OF THE LIABILITY CERTIFICATE DTD.19.8.2005 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16294 OF 2006 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner retired as Headmaster of the Government Higher Secondary School, Cherkala Central, Kasaragode. The challenge in this writ petition is against Exhibits P5 and P6 by which an amount of Rs.18,949/- has been fixed as liability against the petitioner. Out of the said amount, Rs.11,259/- is fixed as liability on the ground that the petitioner had issued Non-Liability Certificate to the former Headmistress Smt.Vijaya Lekshmi even though there was liability on her part to the extent of the said amount. The amount of Rs.7,930/- represents expenses for S.S.L.C examination for the year March 2004 which will be disbursed on the basis of the proceedings of the Examination Commissioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the main ground shown in Exhibit P5 that the petitioner had issued Non-Liability Certificate to Smt.Vijaya Lekshmi is patently wrong W.P.(C) No.16294/06 2 and therefore, the fixation of liability on that ground is not justified. It is pointed out that the petitioner had, as per Exhibits P1 and P2, reported to the Deputy Director of Education, Kasaragod about the existence of liability to the tune of Rs.11,259/- on the part of Smt.Vijaya Lekshmi. Exhibit P1 is the covering letter forwarding the details to the Deputy Director of Education and Exhibit P2 is a further communication reiterating the same. Exhibit P3 shows that the Deputy Director of Education was of the view that the petitioner had forwarded the details of liability only after repeated instructions from the office. But prior to the same, a Non-Liability Certificate was issued on the premise that there was no liability on the part of Smt.Vijaya Lekshmi and therefore the said amount has to be fixed as liability against the petitioner. 3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is clear from paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit that even though Liability Certificate in the prescribed form was received from the petitioner on 16.04.2004, the Deputy Director of Education, Thrissur issued Non-Liability Certificate to the retired Headmaster W.P.(C) No.16294/06 3 Smt.Vijaya Lekshmi on the presumption that there are no liabilities outstanding against the retired Headmaster. It is stated that the office of the Deputy Director of Education could not furnish the Liability Certificate in time to the Deputy Director of Education, Thrissur for want of receipt of Liability Certificate from the petitioner. Because of the irresponsible act of the petitioner the Government has sustained a loss of Rs.11,259/-, which is the amount due from the former Headmaster Smt.Vijaya Lekshmi. 4. A reading of Exhibit P5 shows that the reason stated therein is that the petitioner had issued Non-Liability Certificate for enabling the former Headmistress to draw the pensionary benefits. It is patently wrong. Exhibits P1 and P2 shows that the petitioner had correctly shown the liability against Smt.Vijaya Lekshmi. Therefore, the reason stated in Exhibit P5 that the petitioner had issued Non-Liability Certificate to the former Headmistress is purely unsustainable. Non-liability certificate has been issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Thrissur as per the details furnished by the office of the Deputy Director of Education, Kasaragod. What was the actual reason to forward W.P.(C) No.16294/06 4 the details regarding Smt.Vijaya Lekshmi even before receipt of the communication from the petitioner is not clear in the counter affidavit. Merely because there is some delay on the part of the petitioner, the Deputy Director of Education was not justified in presuming that there was no liability outstanding against Smt.Vijaya Lekshmi. Evidently, the petitioner was not at fault as he had forwarded Exhibits P1 and P2 even if there was delay in the matter. 5. As far as the question of liability is concerned, that can be fixed only on the premise that some loss has been caused to the Government. Herein it is not due to any default or inaction on the part of the petitioner that Non-Liability Certificate was issued in favour of the former Headmistress by the then Deputy Director of Education. The reason stated presently in the counter affidavit is that there was delay on the part of the petitioner in informing the liability as per Exhibit P1 etc. But that is not the reason pointed out in Exhibit P5. Hence Exhibit P5 cannot be sustained. The petitioner cannot be made answerable to the amount of Rs.11,259/- shown as liability. Regarding the other W.P.(C) No.16294/06 5 amount of Rs.7,930/-, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the amount has been recouped during 8/2006 and action has been taken to refund it to the petitioner. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. Exhibit P5 is quashed. There will be a direction to the respondents to disburse an amount of Rs.18,949/- to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for grant of interest, I do not think it is a fit case to award interest in favour of the petitioner. It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the Government taking steps to realize the amount of Rs.11,259/- from the former Headmistress if it is permissible under law. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp