Lingaraju K.H. vs State of Karnataka

N.K. Patil, J.—The appellant, questioning the correctness or otherwise of the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No. 20010 of 2010 (S-RES), dated 1st October, 2010 (Lingaraju K.H. v. State of Karnataka), has presented this writ appeal. In the said writ petition, the appellant herein had sought for quashing Annexure-F therein, the recovery order dated 14th May, 2010, passed by the third respondent, insofar as it relates to the appellant, etc. The order passed in the said writ petition by the learned Single Judge is under challenge by the appellant, in this appeal. Brief facts of the case in hand are that, the appellant herein was appointed as Junior Training Officer (JTO) (MMV) during the year 1991 in Sri Renukamba Rural ITI, a private Craftsman Training Unit (for short, "CTU") under a scheme known as "Craftsman Training Scheme" jointly sponsored by the Central and State Government; IPP Administrations and National Council for Vocational Training (for short, "NCVT") and the said scheme laid down standards of training and trade testing in order to maintain quality of the CTUs in the light of the global economy, demand for high quality and proliferation of large number of CTUs vis-a-vis the demand of user industry and employment opportunities, dependant on rigorous affiliation procedures.

The Joint Secretary of the Central Employment and Training, issued a letter dated 28th July, 1998, vide Annexure-E to the writ petition, specifically pointing out: (i) that unless the Standing Committee''s inspection reports (for short "SCIRs"), reflect the fully acceptable position of training infrastructure, students should not be admitted for the courses; (ii) the State Director-in-charge of Craftsman Training, should personally scrutinise the SCIRs before authorising admission of students; (iii) experience disclosed problems arose when the Standing Committee inspections were delayed because of administrative or any other reasons and in the meantime admissions of the trainees when made, later on pressure was brought to permit trainees to take up the "NCVT" examination. In the backdrop of such circumstances, the Joint Secretary of Central Employment and Training directed that the effective date of affiliation of a trade be reckoned from the date of inspection by the Standing Committee.

Be that as it may, the State of Karnataka having regard to the Grant-in-aid code for Private Industrial Training Institutes in Karnataka, 1997 (for short, "Code"), issued a circular dated 15th November, 1997, vide Annexure-R1 to the statement of objections filed to the writ petition, that salary grant would be admitted to such of those CTUs which had completed seven years after the affiliation.

The Standing Committee inspected the CTU on 17th August, 1991 for the first time and submitted the "SCIR" vide Annexure-A pointing out the defect/deficiency in relation to Mechanical (Motor Vehicle) Unit, and directing the CTU to procure a four wheel motor vehicle for imparting training. The Standing Committee, after inspection, submitted the SCIR dated 19th January, 1993, vide Annexure-B to the writ petition, disclosing that there were no defects or deficiencies in the matter of Mechanical (MV) Unit in the CTU, which when considered by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Director General of Employment Training, accorded affiliation with effect from 19th January, 1993 as communicated vide letter dated 31st October, 1994 vide Annexure-B to the writ petition The State though admitted the CTU for salary grant with effect from 1st January, 1999, under the Code and released the salary for a period of twelve months upto 31st December, 1999, when found to be ineligible, directed recovery of Rs. 40,302/- from the appellant by communication dated 14th May, 2010 vide Annexure-F to the writ petition

It is the specific case of the appellant that the said notice was not issued to the appellant, but to the fourth respondent-Principal of Sri Renukamba Rural ITI and thereafter the third respondent has proceeded to pass the order for recovery of a sum of Rs. 40,302/-, on hyper technical grounds Therefore, it is his specific case that, if opportunity had been given to him, he would have apprised and pointed out the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions, that the recovery of the amount which has already been paid after sanctioning the grant, is not sustainable except on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation In the instant case, the appellant has been paid the salary after salary grant and after taking his services Now, after lapse of several years, it is not open for the authorities to initiate proceedings ex parte and issue the order for recovery of the aforesaid amount and the same is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice Therefore, the impugned order passed by the third respondent cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside

It is the further case of appellant that this aspect of the matter has also not been looked into nor appreciated by the learned Single Judge and proceeded to dismiss the writ petition, without affording opportunity to the appellant to bring it to the notice of the respondents, the catena of decisions of the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court that once the benefit of salary grant is enjoyed by a person for several years, it is not open for the authorities to recover the salary grant, except if the same is obtained by way of fraud or misrepresentation Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is also liable to be set aside Thus, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the third respondent as also the learned Single Judge, the appellant has presented this appeal, seeking appropriate reliefs as stated supra

We have heard learned Counsel appearing for appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents

After careful perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and the entire material available on file, it emerges that, the appellant was appointed as Junior Training Officer (JTO) in the fourth respondent-College After being convinced with the requisite qualification and the length of service rendered by the appellant coupled with the nature of course prosecuted, the respondents have extended the grant under a specific scheme, referred above On the basis of recommendation forwarded by the fourth respondent-College, the Competent Authority has sanctioned the grant-in-aid and the said benefit, has been, in turn, extended to the appellant It is not in dispute that on the basis of the Government order dated 15th November, 1997 and the recommendation of the College, office order has been passed by the third respondent on 23rd April, 1999, sanctioning the grant to the appellant and two other persons who are working in the same College Be that as it may, on the basis of the audit objection No. 16, dated 6th June, 2009, raised by the Accountant General, the letter dated 18th August, 2009, issued by the Commissioner of Employment and Training, Bangalore and the official letter dated 22nd June, 2009, the third respondent has passed the order vide Annexure-F, dated 14th May, 2010, communicating the Principal of the fourth respondent-College that, the grant-in-aid extended to the College is premature and therefore they are not entitled to salary grant before expiry of seven years and therefore, the grant made between the period from 1-1-1999 to 31-12-1999 as per audit objection No. 16, amounting a sum of Rs. 40,302/- is to be recovered from the salary of the official in one installment and credited to the Treasury under the relevant Head of Account It is significant to note that, the said order has been passed by the third respondent without issuing any notice, whatsoever to the appellant and that the said order/letter is addressed to the Principal of the fourth respondent-College If an opportunity of hearing had been given to the appellant, personally, who is the actual person affected by such order of recovery, he might have replied to the same, defending his case that, when he is not at fault, the benefit extended to him from 1-1-1999 to 31-12-1999 and recovery of a sum of Rs. 40,302/- by virtue of order dated 14th May, 2010 after lapse of more than 10 years is not permissible He might have also pointed out the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and Others, and Shyam Babu Verma and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , wherein the Apex Court has held that when the Institution/College was admitted to grant pursuant to the recommendations by the Standing Committee and the employees are granted salaries as per the grant and there is no fault of the employees, then, recovery is not permissible, except if the same is obtained by way of fraud or misrepresentation This aspect of the matter might have been brought to the notice of the respondents, if an opportunity of hearing had been afforded to the appellant, from whose salary, recovery is sought Therefore, the impugned passed by third respondent is without following due procedure of law, resulting in total violation of the principles of natural justice Even if there is no specific provision under the statute, it is needless to mention that, any order passed must be made after following due procedure of law in compliance of the principles of natural justice, as held by the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court in hosts of judgments

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, we are of the firm opinion that expressing any opinion one wav or the other would affect the stand to be taken by the respective parties and therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of this case and the stand taken by the respective parties, i.e. the appellant or the State Government, it would suffice for this Court to safeguard the interest of both the parties, to remand the matter to the respondents for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. In the light of the discussion made above, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed in part:

The order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 20010 of 2010 (S-RES), dated 1st October, 2010 and the order passed by the third respondent dated 14th May, 2010 bearing No BDO/A-1/Audit/VIVA-14/2009-10 vide Annexure-F to the writ petition, insofar as it relates to the appellant, are hereby quashed

The matter stands remitted back to the third respondent to reconsider the matter afresh and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to be made available by either of the parties

All the contentions urged by both the parties are left open