Allowed

Sreeja K., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Dec 2022WP(C)/23222/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed proceedings determining a liability of Rs.1,00,000/- against a retired teacher. Relying on an account statement showing remittance, the court directed the Deputy Director to verify bank records and close proceedings if the remittance is confirmed, or allow action if the document is found genuine by the office records.

What did the court decide?

Exhibit P7 proceedings quashed; 3rd respondent directed to verify Ext.P1 with 4th respondent; proceedings against petitioner to close if remittance confirmed.

Sreeja K., Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
 THURSDAY, THE 8 TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶3

WP(C) NO. 23222 OF 2022

¶4

PETITIONER/S:

¶5

 SREEJA K.,
 AGED 56 YEARS
 W/O. SUDHAKARAN P.,
 RESIDING AT THAPASYA, CHENGOTTUKAVU,
 EDAKKULAM P.O., KOYILANDY,
 KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 306.

¶6

 BY ADVS.
 T.MADHU
 C.R.SARADAMANI
 SHAHID AZEEZ
 RESHMA SANTHOSH
 RENJISH S. MENON

¶7

RESPONDENT/S:

¶8

 1 STATE OF KERALA,
 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GOVERNMENT,
 GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶9

2 THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION, JAGATHI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-673 014.

¶10

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE, MANANCHIRA ROAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673 001.

¶11

4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHEVAYOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 001.

¶12

5 THE MANAGER, GNANODAYAM AIDED LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, PERUMTHURUTHY, ELATHOOR POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 303.

¶13

 SMT NISHA BOSE SR GP

¶14

 WP(C) NO. 23222 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
 ON 08.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
 FOLLOWING:

¶17

 WP(C) NO. 23222 OF 2022

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Exhibit P7 proceedings issued by the 4th respondent, as per which liability of Rs.1,00,000/- has been determined on the petitioner herein.

¶21

From the records made available before this Court, it appears that the petitioner, after serving more than three decades as a Lower Primary School Teacher and as a Headmistress, had attained superannuation on 31.03.2021.

¶22

Records reveal that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was sanctioned to the Gnanodayam Aided Lower Primary School, Perumthuruthy, under the Tsunami Rehabilitation Package of the Government of Kerala. This was to carry out additional constructions to the school building. A cheque for Rs. 1,00,000/- was transferred to the account maintained by the School through the Elathoor-Karannoor-Service Co-operative Bank. However, the owner of the property wherein the building was proposed to be constructed did not permit the school authorities to carry out construction. The petitioner asserts that on 04.07.2009 itself, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited in the

¶23

account maintained by the Deputy Director of Education, Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme, with the State Bank of India. Exhibit P1 is the Statement Of Account evidencing the said fact.

¶24

 WP(C) NO. 23222 OF 2022

¶25

¶26

In the Audit conducted on 14.06.2021, an objection was raised by the respondents that reliable materials evidencing the remittance of Rs.1,00,000/- by the petitioner in the account of the Deputy Director on 04.07.2009 has not been produced by the petitioner. Accordingly, a liability of Rs.1,00,000/- was determined against her name. Though the petitioner raised her objections, the same was rejected by Exhibit P4. It is in the afore circumstances that this writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P7 proceedings.

¶27

I have heard Sri. T. Madhu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶28

I find from Ext.P1, which is the account statement of the Deputy Director of Education, Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme, that on 04.07.2009 itself, a sum of Rs. 1,00,0000/- was deposited. The petitioner could not have produced any better document to substantiate the remittance. Furthermore, Ext.P6 reply received by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act would reveal that no further amounts are to be received by the 3rd respondent from any school towards the amounts disbursed under the Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme. I fail to understand the reasons which persuaded the AEO to direct the petitioner to produce more authentic documents. The AEO could have ascertained the fact that the

¶29

 WP(C) NO. 23222 OF 2022

¶30

¶31

amount had been remitted from the office of the concerned DD. In that view

¶32

of the matter, I am unable to sustain Ext.P7 issued by the AEO.

¶33

Resultantly, the following directions are issued:

¶34

a) The 3rd respondent shall, within three weeks from

¶35

today, convey the genuineness or otherwise of Ext.P1 to the 4th respondent.

¶36

b) If the bank records maintained by the 3rd respondent

¶37

reveal that the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 4.7.2009, being the amount disbursed towards Tsunami Rehabilitation Programme, the 4th respondent shall take note of the same and close all further proceedings against the petitioner herein.

¶38

c) If, on the other hand, the 3rd respondent conveys

¶39

information that no amount has been remitted by the petitioner and that Ext.P1 is not genuine, the 4th respondent shall be at liberty to

¶40

initiate appropriate action for realization of the amount.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶43

avs

¶44

 WP(C) NO. 23222 OF 2022

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23222/2022

¶47

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶48

`Exhibit P1`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS ISSUED` `BY THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, KANNUR ROAD BRANCH,` `KOZHIKODE.`
`Exhibit P2`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 2/12/2021` `SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FOURTH` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P3`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3/12/2021` `SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FOURTH` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P4`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23/12/2021 ISSUED` `BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P5`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 8/1/2022 SUBMITTED` `BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P6`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 29/12/2021` `RECEIVED FROM THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO A QUERY` `RAISED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.`
`Exhibit P7`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 23/3/2022 OF` `THE FOURTH RESPONDENT, WITH THE COVERING LETTER DT.` `26-3.22.`
`Exhibit P8`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8/4/2022` `SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FOURTH` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P9`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29/4/2022` `SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD` `RESPONDENT.`

Sreeja K., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreeja K., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sujatha Menon Vs State of Kerala

Sreedevi.B Vs the State of Kerala

Serms Infrastructure Private Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Haritha K. T. Vs State of Kerala

Geetha.K.S Vs Sree Narayana Samskarika Samithy Represented by the Secretary

Incore House Keeping (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India