Lucy T.I. vs The State of Kerala and Others

Antony Dominic, J.—Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P1 order dated 29/11/2005 fixing liability on the petitioner, who retired as the Principal of Government Higher Secondary School, Edappal on 31/05/2003.

Prior to her retirement, while the petitioner was working as the Principal of Government Higher Secondary School, Chavakkad, disciplinary proceedings were initiated resulting in Ext.P3 order dated 11/07/2003 imposing a punishment of barring of one increment for one year without cumulative effect. Subsequently, by Ext.P1 order dated 29/11/2005, liability of the petitioner has been fixed and it is challenging Ext.P1 order, the writ petition is filed.

A reading of Ext.P1 shows that three liabilities have been fixed against the petitioner which shall be dealt with in the order in which it is fixed.

The first liability fixed is that through the Guruvayur Municipality, the petitioner was given an advance of Rs. 40,000/- for maintenance of the school building, and only Rs. 18,494/- was fixed. The suggestion is that the differential amount was misappropriated. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that by Ext.P5 agreement between the Principal and the Officials of the Parents Teachers Association (PTA), the maintenance work was entrusted to the PTA. It is stated that maintenance work was carried out by the PTA spending its own resources and that thereafter, when by Ext.P7, the PTA requested for payment of Rs. 40,000/- spent by it, the petitioner released the full amount of Rs. 40,000/- received by her as advance. It is contended that the allegation that the petitioner misappropriated the amount is incorrect.

However, the primary duty to spend the amount was that of the petitioner. This was coupled with the duty to ensure that the amount is paid only after being satisfied that the amount was actually spent for maintenance purpose. In this writ petition, there is absolutely no material to indicate that before the amount was allegedly released to the PTA, the petitioner had any material to be satisfied that the PTA had in fact expended the amount. If that be so, the petitioner cannot rely on Ext.P7 alone and justify the alleged payment made to the PTA. For that reason, I cannot accept the contention of the petitioner and the first liability fixed has to be sustained.

The second liability fixed is that there was no vouchers for having spent Rs. 13,150/- paid by the Guruvayur Municipality and that there was nothing to show that the expenditure allegedly incurred was accepted by the Guruvayur Municipality. Here also, the suggestion is that this amount was misappropriated. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Ext.P8 which shows that the petitioner had tendered account of the amount expended by her and that the Secretary of the Municipality has acknowledged receipt of such account by an endorsement made on Ext.P8. There is no material to indicate that Ext.P8 was rejected by the Municipality. If that be so, there is absolutely no justification for fixing the liability of Rs. 13,150/- on the petitioner.

The third liability fixed is that by the time punishment was imposed on the petitioner by Ext.P3, the petitioner having retired from service, she is liable to refund an amount equal for an increment received by her for one year. Admittedly, punishment in question was imposed only on 11/07/2003, whereas the petitioner was already retired from service on 31/03/2003. On the cessation of employment by retirement of employees, disciplinary proceedings can be continued only for the purposes mentioned in the Rules. There is no Rule enabling imposition of punishment, once an employee is retired from service. In this case, this precisely is what is happened. Therefore, the recovery of incremental amount already paid is impermissible. Therefore, the third liability fixed on the petitioner also cannot be sustainable.

Accordingly, the liability fixed on the petitioner, except to the extent the liability of Rs. 21,506/- has been fixed, will stand set aside, and the respondents are directed to disburse the amount withheld from the petitioner''s terminal benefits as above. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months of production of a copy of this judgment.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.