Disposed

V.v.Haridasan v. the Secretary

Kerala HC13 Dec 2016WP(C)/12159/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned the recovery of financial liabilities deducted from the petitioner's DCRG due to alleged stock shortage while working as an Amber Instructor. The High Court observed that the recovery orders were not quantified as per statutory rules.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation within three months after affording an opportunity of being heard, without being hampered by previous orders.

V.v.Haridasan Vs the Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 12159 of 2007 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

V.V.HARIDASAN, SREEHARSHAM, VARIKKARA, NEAR S.S.TEMPLE, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. DIRECTOR, PAYYANNUR KHADI CENTRE, PAYYANNUR.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.HARISH, SC SRI.M.SHARAFUDHEEN, SC

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

msv/

¶15

WP(C).No. 12159 of 2007 (V)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PAYY DTD.	COPY OF THE ANNUR KHADI 26.3.1994.	PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR, CENTRE, PAYYANNUR NO.4168/92G
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE	COPY OF THE	APPEAL PETITION DTD.24.10.1994.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE SUBM SECR	COPY OF THE ITTED BY THE ETARY.	LETTER NO.2209/F/94 DTD.6.7.2005 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE DTD.	COPY OF THE 13.12.2005 I	PROCEEDINGS NO.KB 9400/2004/E1(A) SSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT SECRETARY.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE THE	COPY OF THE 2ND RESPONDE	ORDER NO.508/B/04 DTD.18.5.2006 OF NT FIXING ADDITIONAL LIABILITY.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE DTD.	COPY OF THE 6.2.2004.	PROCEEDINGS NO.508/C/2004
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE THE	COPY OF THE PETITIONER B	COMPLAINT DTD.24.2.2006 SUBMITTED BY EFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

msv/

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶25

========================= W.P.(C) No.12159 of 2007

¶26

==========================

¶27

Dated this the 13^th day of December, 2016

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

While the petitioner was working as an Amber Instructor at the Payyannur Khadi Centre, certain liabilities were fixed upon him. The alleged liability that is fastened upon the petitioner relates to the year 1988-1991, on the allegations, as per an audit objection, that certain quantity of yarn and other stock was found to be short. The petitioner explained the shortage of stock and claimed that he was not responsible for any such loss and that there is no loss and that the detection of the shortage was only on account of the fact that two invoices were missing. According to the petitioner, there was actually no shortage at all and that what was detected was only a technical defect.

¶30

Notwithstanding the petitioner's explanation, action was taken against him, which culminated in Ext.P1 order, directing that an amount of 23,986.73/- be recovered from₹ him and another person equally. The petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the first respondent against this order. According to the petitioner, this appeal was never considered.

¶31

W.P.(C) No.12159 of 2007

¶32

¶33

However, according to him, as per Ext.P3 letter of the Director, the shortage detected was not found to be on account of the culpability of the petitioner and the Director, therefore, ordered a full-fledged enquiry. Subsequently, in Ext.P4 proceedings, the first respondent quantified the liability, as against the petitioner, as 18,293.53/-. The₹ petitioner submits that notwithstanding Ext.P4 proceedings, another order was issued by the Director, wherein a further amount of 7,152/- was fastened upon him without any basis₹ but on account on which, the Secretary of the Board issued Ext.P6 order directing that an amount of 25,446/- be withheld₹ from the DCRG payable to him. The petitioner preferred Ext.P7 representation against this order before the first respondent. According to the petitioner, Ext.P7 is still pending. The petitioner, therefore, impugns Exts.P4 to P6 as being illegal and seeks a direction to the respondents to disburse the said amount of 25,446/-. ₹

¶34

I have heard Sri. Ramesan Nambisan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner brings to my notice that while this writ petition was pending, the amount of

¶36

W.P.(C) No.12159 of 2007

¶37

¶38

₹7,152/- covered by Ext.P5 was in fact released to him and that, therefore, he has no further claims on that head. As regards the amount covered by Ext.P4, as mentioned above, the petitioner has already preferred Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P7 representation, which, according to him, are still pending. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, asserts that Ext.P2 appeal has been disposed of and that Ext.P4 is the order on such appeal.

¶39

I have examined the above orders exhibited in the writ petition. Ext.P4 does not specifically say that it is an answer to the contentions of the petitioner in Ext.P2 appeal. Be that as it may, as per the provisions of the Kerala Service Rules, to which the Board is legally amenable, it is imperative that the alleged liability against the petitioner only be quantified in the manner provided therein. For that purpose, I think it is appropriate that the Secretary of the Board considers Ext.P7 representation of the petitioner taking into particular account the specific mandate contained in Rule 116(3) of the KSR and to examine as to whether the liability now fastened upon the petitioner can be so fastened and whether the petitioner is liable for the amounts that has sought to be recovered as per Ext.P4.

¶40

W.P.(C) No.12159 of 2007

¶41

¶42

In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 representation made by the petitioner, untrammelled by any other orders including Ext.P4, and pass orders thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before finalisastion of the proceedings by the first respondent.

¶43

In the nature of the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs and the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

¶44

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶45

stu

V.v.Haridasan v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.v.Haridasan v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pavitran Vs State of Kerala

K.K. Sadanandan Vs the Geologist

Bhuvaneswari Antharjenam Vs Makkentheri Illath Mahasenan Namboodiri

Manilal K Vs State of Kerala

M.R.Sunil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

A.N.Kishor Kumar Vs Cochin Devaswom Board & Anr.