A K VASU PILLAI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Special Village Officer. He has been directed by Exts. P11 and P13, produced along with the petition, to pay the amount mentioned in Ext. P11, a sum of Rs. 4159.52, towards shortage of paddy that had been collected by the petitioner and which has not been accounted for by him to Government. Ext. P 13 does not mention the amount but it refers to Ext. P11 and concludes by stating that if within three days of the receipt of Ext. P13 the amount demanded by Ext. P11 is not paid disciplinary action will be initiated against the petitioner without further notice.

(2.) It is, however, seen that prior to Exts. P11 and P13, two memos Exts. P6 and P9 had been issued to the petitioner. Ext. P6 related to the levy of 1966 Punja crop, and Ext. P9 to the 1968 Punja crop. These memos were said to have been issued and have been understood and can be treated as charges levelled against the petitioner under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. Shortly stated the charges levelled against the petitioner are that there has been misconduct or dereliction of duty. The dereliction of duty is said to arise from the disobedience of certain orders for the payment of certain amounts said to be due from the petitioner towards shrinkage of paddy which had admittedly been collected by the petitioner but had been released. It may be necessary to elaborate this point. The petitioner was in charge of carrying out the provisions of the Kerala Rice and Paddy (Procurement by Levy) Order, 1966, in certain areas. He in accordance with the provisions therefor, collected the levy and the quantum of the paddy collected is specifically known. All these paddy had not been released. In accordance with the Government instructions the petitioner had been asked to account for the difference and to pay the price of the paddy which was short. His explanation has always been that considerable time elapsed between the date of procurement of the paddy and the date of the release, that the paddy was at times at least procured immediately after the harvest and due to natural causes of driage and shrinkage the volume had come down, that the percentage of fall is negligent, that actually much more shrinkage and driage are permitted in similar cases and that be is not responsible for the short fall. In his arguments before me counsel also submitted that the release of the paddy is not within the control of the Village Officer as he has to abide by the orders and directions given by the superior officers, that there is no case that the petitioner had been negligent in any manner in the storage of paddy or in taking care of it and that there being no case of any negligence on his part a demand of the price of the short fall which is due to natural causes is arbitrary.

(3.) The question as to whether there has been any misconduct would depend upon what is the case against the petitioner. As was submitted by counsel for petitioner, no specific case of negligence in the discharge of his duties which had in any manner contributed to the particular short fall is even alleged in any stage of the proceedings. All that has been emphasised is that orders passed requiring the petitioner to pay the costs of the short fall of paddy had not been obeyed. Apparently the persons who framed the charges against the petitioner had in mind sub clause (a) of Clause (iv) to Sub-r.(1) of R.11 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. That sub clause is in these terms: