AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt M. Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-II for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and perused the material on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is questioning the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in fastening the entire liability of Rs.4,13,082/- on the petitioner vide Notice No.A/194/2022 dated 26.03.2026 as illegal and arbitrary. Despite the Memo issued by the respondent No.4 vide No.CPRRE-B2/ESST/DSPC/11/2025 dated 25.03.2026 directing the respondent No.2-District Collector to furnish detailed report on the recovery of loss amount of Rs.4,13,082/- from the charged officers i.e., the petitioner and the respondent No.5 herein, the respondent No.3 issued the impugned Notice dated 26.03.2026 directing the petitioner to remit the entire amount of Rs.4,13,082/- to the Government. In view of the same, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 01.04.2026, but the same has not been considered and the respondents are insisting the petitioner to remit the entire amount, which is arbitrary and illegal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that after filing this writ petition on 06.08.2026, the respondent No.2 issued Lr.No.DPO/A1/ESTT/0012/2026-DPO dated 07.08.2026 by directing the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, MPP Pangal, to register a criminal case against the petitioner for misappropriation of Government funds amounting to Rs.4,13,082/-, which is arbitrary and illegal and requested to set aside the impugned notice and the consequential proceedings dated 07.08.2026.
On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services-II, basing on written instructions, submits that the respondents are initiating appropriate action against the persons concerned for recovery of loss amount. The departmental record including the memos, final notice, correspondence of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the directions issued by the Commissioner, PR & RE, are available with the Office and the respondents are taking steps in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions, departmental rules and the directions of the competent authorities. She further submits that the respondents are not imposing the entire liability of Rs.4,13,082/- on the petitioner and they will decide on apportionment of liability against the petitioner and the respondent No.5 in due course. She further submits that the respondents will consider the representation of the petitioner dated 01.04.2026 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner for apportionment of liability and requested to pass appropriate orders.
In view of the submissions of learned counsel for both the sides that the respondents are not imposing the entire liability on the petitioner and they will decide on apportionment of liability on the petitioner and the respondent No.5, the Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned Notice No.A/194/2022 dated 26.03.2026 and the consequential proceedings issued by the respondent No.2 vide Lr.No.DPO/A1/ESTT/0012/2026-DPO dated 07.08.2026 and the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate action in pursuance to the Memo dated 25.03.2026 issued by the respondent No.4 for fixing up the liability against the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5 in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand dismissed.