IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2008 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1930 OP.No. 8991 of 2001(U) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.K. VASUDEVAN PILLAI, YAMUNA VIHAR, VALLAMKULAM. (RETD. HEADMASTER, NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL, VALLAMKULAM) BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD ADV. SRI. N. RAMDAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DY. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PATHANAMTHITTA AT THIRUVALLA. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUVALLA. 5. THE HEADMASTER, NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL, TIRUVALLA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.T. MAHAMOOD. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/04/2008 THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 8991/2001. --------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF SANCTIONING ORDER DT. 30-9-1999. EXT.P2 STAFF FIXATION ORDER DT. 10-8-1993. EXT.P3 STAFF FIXATION ORDER DT. 7-1-1994. EXT.P4 NOTICE DT. 1-11-1997. EXT.P5 CIRCULAR DT. 3-7-1993. EXT.P6 REPY DT. 26-11-1995. EXT.P7 RECOMMENDATION DT. 20-1-1998. EXT.P8 LETTER DT. 3-3-1998. EXT.P9 ORDER DT. 29-9-1998. EXT.P10 APPEAL DT. 8-12-1998. EXT.P11 ORDER DT. 7-7-2000. EXT.P12 LETTER DT. 3-8-2000. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 8991 of 2001 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 3rd April, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner retired as a Headmaster of an aided school on 31- 5-1999. He is aggrieved by the recovery of an amount of Rs. 59,490/- from his D.C.R.G as loss caused to the Government on account of wrong fixation of staff strength for the year 1993-94 in the petitioner's school, resulting in appointment of two excess teachers to whom salary was paid to the above tune. By Ext. P4, the D.E.O forwarded an extract of para I of the inspection report of the Accountant General for 1993-94 and directed the petitioner to show cause why action should not be taken to make good the loss sustained by the Government on account of the action of the petitioner, from the petitioner. It appears that the allegation against the petitioner was that the petitioner did not comply with the directions in Ext. P5 circular dated 3-7-1993, by which the Headmasters were bound to inform the details of students who have been relieved from the school granting transfer certificate after the strength verification by the D.E.O because of which the two teachers happened to be appointed although there was no sufficient staff strength to warrant their appointment. By Ext. P7 reply to the inspection report, the D.E.O., Thiruvalla recommended that the objection may be dropped since Ext. P5 circular was reported to have been received by the petitioner only by the end of 1993-94 and therefore he could not have complied with the same. In spite of the same, the proceedings were continued, which resulted in Ext. P9, whereby an amount of Rs.59,490/- being the salary paid to the two teachers was fixed as liability of the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging Exts. P4, P8, P9 and P11. Ext. P8 is copy of a letter from the Deputy Director of Education, Pathanamthitta to the Accountant General, Thiruvananthapuram forwarding Ext. P7 reply to the inspection report by the D.E.O. Ext. O.P.No. 8991/2001. -: 2 :- P11 is the order passed by the Government in the petition filed by the petitioner against the direction to recover the said amount from the petitioner. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner could not have been saddled with the liability for not complying with the circular which he did not receive in time. Learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner cannot claim ignorance of a circular issued in the normal course of business by the Government. He would point out that at the foot of Ext. P5, there is an endorsement by the A.E.O to the effect that copy of the circular is being forwarded to all Headmasters and Sections. He, therefore, submits that there is no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. 4. I do not agree with the learned Government Pleader. Admittedly, by Ext. P7, the concerned D.E.O had recommended that the objection be dropped accepting the statement of the petitioner that he received the circular only by the end of 1993-94. When the D.E.O who is the superior officer of the petitioner accepts the fact that the petitioner received the circular only by the end of 1993-94, the petitioner cannot be found fault with for not complying with the direction in the circular which he received after the event, especially since there is no finding that the petitioner actually received the circular in time to comply with it before staff fixation. As such, that cannot be the basis of recovery of any loss caused to the Government from the petitioner. Therefore, I am satisfied that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. I do so. There would be a direction to the respondents to see that the said amount recovered from the O.P.No. 8991/2001. -: 3 :- petitioner's retirement benefits be paid to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The original petition is disposed of as above. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/