IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 3RD BHADRA, 1944
WA NO. 622 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DTD 29/3/2022 IN WP(C) 15324/2021 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
K.P.SURESH KUMAR
AGED 53 YEARS
KANDATHIL HOUSE,
SOUTH OF S.V. TEMPLE,
S.V.WARD, KAYAMKULAM,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 502.
BY ADVS.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
N.SANTHA
V.VARGHESE
PETER JOSE CHRISTO
S.A.ANAND
K.N.REMYA
L.ANNAPOORNA
VISHNU V.K.
ABHIRAMI K. UDAY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014.
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 001.
4 MANAGER,
SREE VITOBA HIGH SCHOOL, KAYAMKULAM,
2
Writ Appeal No.622 of 2022
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 502.
5 SREE VITTALA DEVASWOM,
S.V.WARD, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690
502, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI.
G.VITTALADAS.
6 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,
KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK,
HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 514.
7 VILLAGE OFFICER,
KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 502.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON
25.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
Writ Appeal No.622 of 2022
P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------
Writ Appeal No.622 of 2022
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of August, 2022
JUDGMENT
C.S.Sudha, J.
This intra court appeal is against the judgment dated 29/03/2022 in W.P.(C) No.15324/2021. The appellant is the petitioner and the respondents herein, the respondents in the writ petition. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the writ petition.
2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner, the former Manager of Sree Vitoba High School, Kayamkulam, who held the said post for a period of five years from 19/05/2014 to 13/09/2019. During the said period, the petitioner had suspended the then Headmistress of the School, namely, R. Maya, as per Ext.P3 suspension order. The said order, according to the petitioner was issued in the best interest of the school and one authorized by the educational agency as is evident from Ext.P4. Ext.P9 revenue recovery notice has been issued to the petitioner for recovery of an amount of ₹ 2,87,773/- towards the salary and allowances to be paid to the Headmistress during the period of suspension. The third respondent without giving notice to the petitioner, has requisitioned the revenue authorities to 4 Writ Appeal No.622 of 2022 recover the aforesaid amount from the petitioner's personal estate, which has culminated in Ext.P9 order. No amount is liable to be recovered from the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition seeking quashing of Ext.P9 order and to declare that the petitioner has no liability whatsoever in his capacity as Manager of the School and that if at all any liability is found due to the Government on account of the suspension order, the same is liable to be recovered from the educational agency and not from the personal assets/estate/property of the petitioner or his assets.
3. The third respondent, Deputy Director of Education, Alappuzha, has filed counter affidavit contending that the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P3 order had requested for extension of the suspension order beyond the period of 15 days. The third respondent on conducting a preliminary investigation as contemplated under sub-rule (8) to Rule 67 of Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules (the KER), found no valid ground to suspend the Headmistress and hence as per Ext.P5 order dated 12/03/2019 directed the petitioner to reinstate the Headmistress in service w.e.f. 26/02/2019. However, the petitioner was not willing to reinstate the Headmistress and aggrieved by Ext.P5 order, he filed revision before the first respondent and simultaneously filed W.P.(C) No.9666/2019 seeking an early disposal of the revision petition. R. Maya, the Headmistress in turn 5 Writ Appeal No.622 of 2022 filed W.P.(C) No.8054/2019 seeking implementation of Ext.P5 order. By Ext.P7 common judgment dated 01/04/2019, the writ petitions were disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and dispose of the revision after hearing the affected parties. The Government on 13/05/2019 heard the affected parties and as per Ext.P8 order dated 20/06/2019, rejected the revision. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner on 26/06/2019 reinstated the Headmistress in service.
3.1. By virtue of sub-rule (8) to Rule 67 of Chapter XIV A of KER, the Deputy Director is the competent authority to review the suspension procedure initiated by the petitioner against the Headmistress beyond the period of 15 days after conducting a preliminary investigation into the grounds of suspension and if on investigation, the authority is satisfied that there is no valid ground for suspension, then the teacher shall forthwith be reinstated with effect from the date of suspension. However, the petitioner never complied with the order of reinstatement. Hence, the recovery proceedings initiated on the basis of Rule 7(4)(c) of Chapter III of KER and Rule 67(8) of Chapter 14 A of KER, is fully justified, contends the third respondent.
4. The fourth respondent, the present Manager has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegation of the petitioner that the suspension order 6 Writ Appeal No.622 of 2022 had been issued under the directions of the educational agency. On the other hand, it is contended that it was an act pure and simple by the petitioner in his capacity as the Manager. Inasmuch as the suspension was highly arbitrary and grossly illegal, it was interfered with by the third respondent and Ext.P5 order issued. The petitioner who was bound to reinstate the Headmistress forthwith, failed to do so. Instead, he proceeded to challenge Ext.P5 order by filing Ext.P6 revision, which has been rejected as per Ext.P8 order. Neither the educational agency nor the Devaswom, had asked the petitioner to disobey Ext.P5. The moment the third respondent had directed reinstatement of the Headmistress, the petitioner ought to have complied with the same. Instead, he protracted the reinstatement of the Headmistress and hence he alone is responsible for any loss sustained by the Government. Neither the Devaswom nor the educational agency had required the petitioner to disobey the lawful directions of the Department. Any unlawful or highhanded action of the petitioner in exercise of his jurisdiction or any act under the guise of competence, is to be answered personally by the Manager. The Manager, who has subsequently taken charge, cannot be made liable for the excesses committed by his predecessor-in-office, contends the fourth respondent.
5. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment, dismissed 7 Writ Appeal No.622 of 2022 the writ petition holding that there is no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error in Ext.P8 or Ext.P9 demand notice. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up in appeal.
6. Heard Adv.V.Varghese, the learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.B.Vinitha, the learned Senior Government Pleader.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner was holding the office of the Manager of the School, he was constrained to place R. Maya, the then Headmistress of the School under suspension, as the petitioner had received reliable information from the teachers of the school that the former was deliberately creating problems in the functioning of the school by repeatedly convening staff meetings at short notice during class hours. The entire work and discipline of the school was being affected by the said conduct of the Headmistress. These staff meetings were being convened with the hidden agenda of spreading defamatory rumors about the management and the Manager of the School. The basis for convening such meetings would be some anonymous letters addressed to the Headmistress, containing highly defamatory and baseless allegations against the Manager and the Managing Committee of the Devaswom, the educational agency. It was under the said circumstance the petitioner in his capacity as the Manager of the School, had issued Ext.P1 8 Writ Appeal No.622 of 2022 show-cause notice dated 16/02/2019 calling for an explanation from the Headmistress regarding the complaint received against her.
7.1. The Headmistress submitted Ext.P2 reply dated 17/02/2019, which reply was found to be not satisfactory and hence the petitioner had issued Ext.P3 order of suspension. Ext.P3 dated 26/02/2019 was issued by the petitioner after the Managing Committee of the Devaswom/the educational agency, i.e., the fifth respondent, had been apprised of the misconduct and indiscipline on the part of the Headmistress. The fifth respondent, in turn by a unanimous decision, entrusted the petitioner to take proper and strict measures in the matter, which is evident from Ext.P4 minutes of the meeting of the Management Committee of the Devaswom. By Ext.P5 order dated 12/03/2019, the third respondent had directed the reinstatement of the Headmistress against which the petitioner had filed Ext.P6 revision within 3 days, i.e., on 15/03/2019. The petitioner also moved this Court challenging Ext.P5 order and sought disposal of Ext.P6 revision. The Headmistress in turn had also filed a writ petition seeking implementation of Ext.P5. By Ext.P7 judgment dated 01/04/2019, this Court disposed of the two writ petitions holding that in the light of Ext.P5, the Headmistress would be on deemed suspension and directed the Government to pass orders on Ext.P6 revision. Though the Management was expecting a 9 Writ Appeal No.622 of 2022 favourable order on Ext.P6, the Government as per Ext.P8 order dated 20/06/2019, rejected Ext.P6 revision. The petitioner received a copy of Ext.P8 on 26/06/2019, on which day itself the Headmistress was reinstated in service. Therefore, the argument is that the petitioner had with bonafide intention passed Ext.P3 order in the best interest of the school. He did not reinstate the Headmistress immediately on receipt of Ext.P5 order only because he was pursuing the statutory remedy available to him, which cannot be termed as a wilful or deliberate refusal on his part in complying with Ext.P5 order. It is only when serious irregularities are committed by the Manager causing monetary loss to the teacher/Government, the provisions of Rule 7(4)(c) in Chapter III of KER and sub-rule (8) to Rule 67 can be invoked. Further, as per sub-rule (4) to Rule 3 of Chapter III, the educational agency is bound by the acts of the Manager and hence if at all any amount(s) requires to be recovered, the Government can proceed against the assets and property of the educational agency, namely, the fifth respondent. It is also pointed out that proceedings for recovery, if necessary, can also be initiated against the present Manager, the fourth respondent herein.
8. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Senior Government Pleader that it is the petitioner who had disobeyed Ext.P5 order and so it is 10 Writ Appeal No.622 of 2022 the petitioner alone who can be made liable and necessary recovery effected from him. According to her, once the educational authority had declined permission to approve the suspension beyond a period of 15 days, the petitioner-Manager was bound to reinstate the Headmistress. Having failed to obey the order of reinstatement, the petitioner cannot escape from the liability contemplated under Rule 7(4)(c) read with Rule 67(8) in Chapter III and Chapter XIV A respectively of the KER, submits the learned Senior Government Pleader.
9. We have considered the submissions made by either side. We first refer to the relevant provisions applicable in this case. Rule 3 of Chapter III KER says that management of every aided school may be vested by the educational agency in a person who shall be referred to as the Manager, who in turn shall be responsible to the Department for the management of the institution. Sub-rule (4) says that the educational agency shall be bound by the acts of the Manager. Rule 7 in Chapter III deals with action to be taken against the Manager or educational agency in the event of mismanagement. The relevant provision reads -
"7. Action against Manager or Educational Agency in the event of mismanagement etc.-
(1) In the event of mismanagement, malpractice, corruption or maladministration, gross negligence of duty, or disobedience of Departmental instruction on the part of the Manager or denial of 11 Writ Appeal No.622 of 2022 appointment to a qualified thrown out teacher who has a rightful claim for reappointment by virtue of his/her holding the post earlier or denial of promotion to a teacher who is rightful claimant for promotion by the manager or conviction of the Manager for an offence involving moral turpitude it shall be open to the "Director, after giving the Manager a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken and after due enquiry, to declare him unfit to hold the office of Manager in the school or in any other aided school and to require the educational Agency to appoint a suitable person as Manager.
[Note-The enquiry mentioned in this sub-rule shall not be necessary in the case of conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude by a court of law].
(2) xxx xxx xxx (3) xxx xxx xxx (4) In the case of a Manager who commits serious irregularities causing monetary loss to teachers/Government, the loss sustained by teachers/Government shall be recoverable from the Manager under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for the time being in force as if it is an arrear of public revenue due on land, in the following cases namely -
(a) xxx xxx xxx
(b) xxx xxx xxx
(c) Suspension of teachers, framing cooked up and / or frivolous charges, keeping them out of service beyond fifteen days disobeying the orders of re-instatement of such incumbents passed by the Deputy Director (Education) or by the Educational officer concerned, as the case may be, after a preliminary investigation into the grounds of suspension under sub-
rule(8) of rule 67, Chapter XIV-A, depriving such incumbents of their salary for which they would have been entitled to had they been reinstated by the Manager in compliance of the orders issued by the officer concerned." (Emphasis supplied) 12 Writ Appeal No.622 of 2022 9.1. The jurisdiction of the Manager to suspend a teacher is contained in S.12 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958 (the Act) and Rule 67 of Chap. XIV A, KER. Sub-section (2) of S.12 provides that no teacher of an aided school shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank by the Manager without the previous sanction of the officer authorized by the Government in this behalf, or placed under suspension by the Manager for a continuous period exceeding 15 days without such previous sanction. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 67 empowers the Manager to place a teacher under suspension in the three contingencies mentioned therein, viz., (a) when disciplinary proceedings against him are contemplated or are pending or (b) when a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial or (c) when the final orders are pending in the disciplinary proceedings if the authority considers that in the then prevailing circumstances it is necessary, in public interest that the teacher should be suspended from service. Sub-
rule (8) of R.67 mandates that the Manager shall report the matter of suspension to the Educational Officer on the same day on which the order of suspension is passed. The Educational Officer shall thereupon make a preliminary investigation into the grounds of suspension. Sub-rule (8) of R.67A reads :
"67. Suspension: (1) The Manager may at any time place a teacher under suspension-
13Writ Appeal No.622 of 2022 xxx xxx xxx (8) Where the orders of suspension is made by the manager he shall on the same day report the matter together with reasons for the suspension to the Educational Officer and where the suspension is in respect of the Headmaster/Headmistress/Vice-Principal of High school and Training school such report shall be sent to the Deputy Director (Education) also in addition to the Educational Officer and in the case of Principal, such report shall be sent to such other officer authorised by the Government. The Deputy Director (Education), if the suspension is in respect of Headmaster/Headmistress/Vice-Principal of a High school or a Training school and Educational Officer in other cases and such other officer authorised by the Government in the case of Principal, shall thereupon make a preliminary investigation into the grounds of suspension. If on such investigations the authority is satisfied that there was no valid ground for the suspension he may direct the manager to reinstate the teacher with effect from the date of suspension and thereupon the teacher shall forthwith be reinstated by the manager. If the teacher is not actually reinstated the teacher shall be deemed to have been on duty. It shall then be open to the Department to disburse the pay and allowances to the teacher as if he were not suspended and recover the amount so disbursed from the manager. If on such investigation it is found that there are valid grounds for such suspension, permission may be given to the manager to place the teacher under suspension beyond 15 days if necessary. The authority mentioned above shall pass orders permitting the suspension or otherwise within said 15 days." (Emphasis supplied)
10. When the Educational Officer has exercised jurisdiction under sub-rule (8) and directed the Manager to reinstate the teacher in service, there cannot be any jurisdiction vested in the Manager to exercise his power of suspension under Rule 67(1) or under Section 12(2) of the Act. Section 14 Writ Appeal No.622 of 2022 12(2) of the Act and Rule 67(1) empower the Manager to place a teacher under suspension for a limited period. His power is circumscribed by the limitation contained in Rule 67. Once the matter is reported to the Educational Officer and the Educational Officer has declined permission to place the teacher under suspension beyond fifteen days, the Manager retains no power either to extend the period of suspension or to continue the order of suspension or to keep the teacher under suspension till the disposal of the revision filed by the Manager against the order passed by the Educational Officer or till final decision in the pending disciplinary proceedings. Such a jurisdiction is not contemplated at all in the KER. (Valsala v. Corporate Manager, C.S.I. Schools, 2008 (4) KLT 60).
11. In Vedanayakom v. Government of Kerala, 2014 (3) KLT 678, a learned Single Judge has held that, going by sub-rule (8) of Rule 67, once the Educational Officer directs the Manager to reinstate the teacher with effect from the date of suspension and the Manager refuses to do so, the teacher shall be deemed to have been on duty and it shall be then open to the Department to disburse the pay and allowances to the teacher as if he/she was not suspended and recover the amount so disbursed from the Manager. The pendency of the Revision Petition filed by the Manager under Rule 92 to Chapter XIV-A of the K.E.R. or the order of stay granted by the 15 Writ Appeal No.622 of 2022 Government in that revision petition staying the order of reinstatement, will not in any manner disentitle the teacher from getting the pay and allowances with effect from the date of suspension, once the revisional authority concurs with the findings of the Educational Officer that the order of suspension was without any valid reasons. Similarly, neither the pendency of a Revision Petition nor the order of stay granted by the revisional authority or a court of law will absolve the Manager from the liability to reimburse to the Department the pay and allowance disbursed to the teacher for the period during which he/she was kept under suspension without any valid reason. Once the order of suspension is found to be one issued without any valid reason by the Educational Authorities in exercise of their powers under Rule 67(8) and that finding is confirmed by the Government in exercise of its revisional powers under Rule 92 of the said Chapter, the Manager cannot be absolved from the liability to reimburse to the Department the pay and allowance disbursed to the teacher for the period during which he/she was kept under suspension illegally. Otherwise, it would defeat the very object of sub-rule (8) of Rule 67 of Chapter XIV-A of the K.E.R.
12. Further, sub-rule (4) to Rule 7 specifically states that for any loss sustained by teacher/Government, the same is liable to be recovered from the Manager under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. The 16 Writ Appeal No.622 of 2022 provision does not say that the recovery is to be effected from the educational agency. The provision also makes it clear that only in cases where the Manager commits serious irregularities causing monetary loss to teachers/Government, proceedings under Rule 7(4)(c) can be initiated against the Manager and not otherwise.
13. A Division Bench of this court in judgment dated 16/10/2015 in W.A.No.863/2015, Corporate Manager, Vicar, St. Augustine R.C. Church, Thuravoor, Angamaly v. V.F. Sheela, held that only when there is a deliberate disobedience of the orders passed by the educational authorities or deliberate violation of the rules, the provisions contained in Chapter III Rule 7 can be invoked against the Manager. It was so observed relying on an earlier Division Bench decision in Manager, M.M.H.S. v. Deputy Director, 1994 (1) KLT 321.
14. Radhakrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala, 2008 KHC 4748 was also a case in which that the Manager was found to have wilfully disobeyed the orders issued by the authorities and the directions issued by this Court and had deliberately denied the benefit of promotion to the petitioner therein. The petitioner therein was held entitled to all the dues from the date when he was entitled to be promoted and for the reason that the Manager had illegally denied him such appointment; the petitioner shall 17 Writ Appeal No.622 of 2022 not be deprived of his entitlement. It was further held that the case disclosed a clear situation where the power of the authorities under Rule 7(4) required to be invoked by the Government to recover from the Manager the loss sustained by the petitioner therein.
15. In the case on hand, the specific case of the petitioner is that Ext.P3 order of suspension is based on Ext.P4 resolution of the educational agency. This is disputed by the fourth respondent, the present Manager, who contends that Ext.P3 order of suspension is a decision taken by the petitioner and not one approved by the educational agency, as alleged by the petitioner. As pointed out by the learned Senior Government Pleader, it appears that Ext.P4 has got nothing to do with Ext.P3. R. Maya was promoted as Headmistress only on 01/04/2018. Therefore, Ext.P4 decision dated 30/01/2018, obviously cannot relate to the alleged misconduct and misbehaviour of R. Maya as Headmistress of the school. Hence, the allegation that Ext.P3 suspension order was issued on the basis of the unanimous decision of the educational agency, is apparently incorrect.
16. As noticed earlier, it is true that it is not in all cases the Manager can be held liable. It is only when there is a deliberate disobedience or when the suspension of the teacher is on the basis of cooked-up or frivolous charges, the Manager can be proceeded with. In the 18 Writ Appeal No.622 of 2022 case on hand, there appears to have been no justification for Ext.P3 order and what justification has been given by the petitioner has been disproved by the documents and materials on record.
17. Another argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that he is presently not holding the post of the Manager and therefore if at all any recovery proceeding has to be initiated, it can be initiated against the present incumbent or against the educational agency in the light of Rule 3(4) of Chapter III KER. This argument cannot also hold good in the light of the decision in Vijeesh C.V. v. State of Kerala, 2014(4) KHC 716. According to the learned Single Judge, only to the post of Manager, but also in any position in an organisation, especially in a Governmental one, notwithstanding the change of the person at the helm of the affairs, the post continues in terms of the statutory scheme governing the said position. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that for all omissions and commissions of a particular person occupying the post, his successors cannot be made liable on the plea that it being a continuous position every person who is at the helm of affairs at the time of the detection of the misconduct, rather than its actual commission, would be liable. Plainly put, such a conclusion would cause manifest injustice to the innocent, apart from putting a premium on the dishonesty of the delinquent. It was also held that 19 Writ Appeal No.622 of 2022 once any misconduct has been detected on the part of the delinquent employee, he could have been subjected to disciplinary proceedings. Primarily before the misconduct is detected, or before any action can be taken thereof, if the said employee happens to get superannuated or leaves his office, that person, and that person alone, can be proceeded against subject to the statutory limitations imposed concerning the issue. Under such circumstances, to hold that even the successor to the delinquent in the post can be made liable is totally unconscionable. By no stretch of imagination, can it be said that an incumbent Manager can be made liable for the misconduct of his predecessor-in-office on the premise that otherwise the Government would be remediless.
18. It is true that in the decision in Beevi Umma S. v. Assistant Educational Officer, Trivandrum, 2016(1) KHC 628, it has been held that the educational agency can also be held liable for the acts of the Manager and that no educational agency cannot absolve itself from the liability on the ground that the default committed or loss occasioned was due to the conduct of the Manager. The said case is one in which the petitioner an individual educational agency, had by due authorization under Rule 3 Chapter III of KER appointed her husband as Manager of the School. While the petitioner's husband was continuing as the Manager, a LPSA was suspended. 20 Writ Appeal No.622 of 2022 The AEO refused to approve the order passed by the Manager and directed the reinstatement of the LPSA. The admitted case of the Manager was that he had availed all the statutory remedies and eventually this Court had permitted the Manager to continue with the disciplinary proceedings, but however specifically directed the reinstatement of the 5 th respondent. The Manager was recalcitrant insofar as carrying out the reinstatement and hence proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 7 of Chapter III of KER, by the educational authorities. As per the notice issued to the petitioner, she was directed to deposit certain amounts, which liability was with respect to the period during which the LPSA was kept under illegal suspension. By the time, the recovery proceeding was initiated, the Manager passed away. In the said circumstances, it was held that the educational agency is also responsible for the act of the Manager and is bound by the act of the Manager. The educational agency in the cited case did not disown the act of suspension by the Manager, who was none other than the husband of the petitioner, the individual educational agency. In the case on hand, the 5 th respondent, educational agency, has disowned Ext.P3 order and as held in Vijeesh C.V. (Supra), it is the petitioner alone who can be held responsible for the loss caused to the Government.
19. The contention of the petitioner that no notice has been issued 21 Writ Appeal No.622 of 2022 to the him before the issuance of Ext.P9 notice of revenue recovery, is replied to by the third respondent who contends that the KER does not contemplate issuance of any notice before recovery proceedings are initiated under Rule 7. Sub-rule (8) to Rule 67 quite clearly provides the consequences that would follow in case the order of the educational authorities is not complied with. Therefore, a further notice is not necessary, which the Rules also do not contemplate. The principles of natural justice embody the rules of fairness, that no person shall be damnified without informing him of the action proposed to be taken against him and which may have evil consequences on him. It is also implied that on such notice being given, the person sought to be proceeded against is entitled, in certain circumstances, to be heard before any decision on the proposal. These rules are meant to guide the exercise of powers which will damnify others. There is a corresponding duty on such persons who are notified to respond to such notice. In case a person chooses, in spite of notice to him, not to make use of the opportunity thus offered, be is not entitled thereafter to complain that the proceedings taken against him are in violation of the principles of natural justice. Natural justice cannot be converted into unnaturally rigid fetters. (Manager, FV High School v. State of Kerala, 1983 KLT 151).
20. Further, the rule audi alteram partem is not an absolute rule, 22 Writ Appeal No.622 of 2022 and in a case where the Court finds that a fair hearing of the affected would not make any difference in the decision proposed, the decision cannot be held to be bad merely for the reason that the affected person was not heard [See Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise. (2015)8 SCC 519]. Moreover, the petitioner has no case that the amount sought to be recovered from him is not the amount permissible to be recovered in terms of the statutory provision.
In these circumstances, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment and so the writ appeal is dismissed.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA JUDGE ami/