H.Premkumar vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 15259 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 29000 OF 2020
PETITIONER:

          H.PREMKUMAR,
          CORPORATE MANAGER, T.D. SCHOOLS, THURAVOOR/ALAPPUZHA,
          ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 540

          SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
          SMT.N.SANTHA
          SRI.V.VARGHESE
          SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
          SRI.S.A.ANAND
          SMT.K.N.REMYA
          SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA
          SHRI.VISHNU V.K.
          KUM.ABHIRAMI K. UDAY
          SHRI.KURUVILLA SABU CHRISTY


RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
          EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
          PIN-695 001

    2     DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
          NEAR CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 001

    3     DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,
          CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 524.

    4     VILLAGE OFFICER,
          KUTHIATHOSE VILLAGE, KUTHIATHODE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688
          533

          SRI. P.M.MANOJ - SR.GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 29000 OF 2020
                                  2


                               JUDGMENT

The present Corporate Manager of TD Schools, Alappuzha

impugns Exts.P8 and P9 proceedings issued against him by the

Deputy Tahsildar, Cherthala Taluk, whereby, he has been

directed to repay an amount of Rs.72,14,326/-, on the basis of

various allegations, with an added threat that if he does not pay

the same, he will be subjected to recovery proceedings as per

law.

2. The singular contention of the petitioner in this writ

petition is that he was not the Corporate Manager at the time

when the allegations, which led to the threat of recovery, had

emanated; and that the office was held by another person at

that particular time. The petitioner says that, going by Rule 7

of Chapter III of the KER, the educational Authorities can only

proceed and recover against and from the incumbent in office

at the time of the proven allegations and not from a subsequent

incumbent, who was not responsible for such misconduct or

action and who, perhaps, had been completely oblivious of the

same while he was selected and appointed.

3. The petitioner says that he has, therefore, preferred

Ext.P6 representation before the Government and prays that WP(C) NO. 29000 OF 2020

the same be directed to be taken up and disposed of, with an

adscititious plea that Exts.P8 and P9 be quashed.

4. I have heard Sri.V.Varghese, the learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri.P.M.Manoj, the learned Senior Government

Pleader.

5. The contentions of the petitioner, as argued by his

learned counsel Sri.V.Varghese, were vehemently refuted by the

learned Senior Government Pleader - Sri.P.M.Manoj, taking me

through various provisions of Rule 7 of Chapter III of the KER.

He showed me that as per the mandate therein, it is the

"Manager who is responsible" as also the "Corporate

Educational Agency" and that there is no reference to a

particular individual. He submitted that, therefore, when

irregularities are found and proved against the particular

Educational Institution, its Manager or the Corporate

Educational Agency, as the case may be, becomes responsible;

and he thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

6. The afore submissions of the learned Senior

Government Pleader will have to be assessed from the

touchstone of the mandate of Rule 7 of Chapter III of the KER. WP(C) NO. 29000 OF 2020

7. The scheme of the said Rule makes it indubitable that

the Authorities have the right to declare a person to be unfit to

hold the post of Manager and if the educational agency does

not substitute him, then take action against such agency also.

The Rule also permits action against incumbents in the post of

Manager through recovery proceedings and therefore, the

question really is whether it is the person in office at the

relevant time who is responsible or the person who succeeds

him thereafter.

8. Though Rule 7 of Chapter III does not specifically take

this particular contingency into account, prima facie, the

provisions seem to indicate that the person in office is

responsible. However, the petitioner has not been given an

opportunity of being heard or putting forth his version,

specifically that he was not responsible for the alleged

misconduct and that the imputations had been levelled against

the earlier Manager, who is stated to have made certain

appointments illegally and unlawful.

9. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the petitioner

cannot be imputed or mulcted with the liability, as has now

been attempted through Exts.P8 and P9 and that the matter WP(C) NO. 29000 OF 2020

will certainly have to gain the attention of the Government; for

which purpose, I notice that Ext.P6 is still pending.

10. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed and Exts.P8

and P9 are set aside; with a consequential direction to the

Government to consider Ext.P6 representation of the petitioner,

after affording him an opportunity of being heard - either

physically or through video conferencing - thus culminating in

an appropriate order thereon, however, adverting specifically to

the provisions of Rule 7 of Chapter III of the KER.

The afore exercise shall be completed by the Government

without any avoidable delay; and it is needless to say that until

such time as a fresh order is issued by the Government in terms

of these directions, no recovery shall be attempted against the

petitioner, though any such action, as per law, does not stand

interdicted through this judgment against the Manager in

whose tenure, the allegations have been attracted and proved.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu WP(C) NO. 29000 OF 2020

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29000/2020

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.

B1/19464/2017/K.DIS DATED 20.12.2017 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. T.D.M/2017 DATED 29.12.2017 OF THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3          TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO.
                    2178/2018/G.EDN DATED 12.06.2018.

EXHIBIT P4          TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.11.2018
                    IN W.P.C NO. 37681/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE
                    COURT ALONG WITH CORRECTION ORDER.

EXHIBIT P5          TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT)NO. 4266/2019/G.EDN
                    DATED 17.10.2019.

EXHIBIT P6          TRUE COPY OF REVISION PETITION DATED

27.11.2019 FILED THE PETITIONER BEFORE GOVERNMENT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE RRC NO. 2020/527/04 DATED 17.12.2020.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE RRC NO. 2020/528/04 DATED 20.11.2020.