VAIJAYANTHI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges Ext. P1 Government Order dated 1st July 1998 and Ext. P4 Government Order dated 17th October 1997 imposing the penalty of barring her one increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect and directing the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs. 14,069 being the loss sustained by the Government.

(2.) As per Ext. P - 2 memo of charges dated 19th May 1997, while holding the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture, Perinthalmanna the petitioner was indifferent, irresponsible and negligent in the discharge of her official duties and she failed (i) to arrange pre - measurements of the earthwork of the foundation of the construction of a side protection wall at Melkulangara - Poonthal Parasekharam, (ii) to insist for the production of invoices of the work by the Convenor as laid down in the Government Order on the subject and (iii) to assure Engineering supersession while the construction work was being executed, which finally resulted in the overpayment of an amount Rs.56,274 to the Convenor of the Padasekhara Samithy. According to the memo of charges the above actions of the petitioner amounted to serious dereliction of duty and grave irregularity on the part of the petitioner and she was required to show cause why disciplinary action as contemplated under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the K.C.S. (C.C. and A) Rules) should not be taken against her. She was allowed 15 days to submit her written statement of defence. It was also stated that if the written statement was not received within the specified time the matter would be proceeded with on the presumption that she had no explanation to offer. A statement of allegation on which the above charges were based was also attached to the memo of charges. The petitioner was also required to state whether she desired to be heard in person.

(3.) In response to the memo of charges the petitioner submitted Ext. P3 explanation dated 21st June 1997. In Ext. P3 explanation the petitioner denied all the charges and submitted that the loss, if any, caused to the Government was not on account of any act of negligence or violation of rules by the petitioner. The petitioner also stated that the charges levelled against her were vague since either in the charges or in the statement of allegations it was not specifically stated as to what action or omission on her part had resulted in misconduct. According to the petitioner, during the relevant period she worked as Assistant Director of Agriculture, Perinthalmanna she had discharged her duties honestly and diligently. Regarding the first charge that the petitioner failed to arrange pre - measurements of the earthworks of the foundation of the construction of a side protection wall at Melkulangara - Poonthal Padasekharam, the petitioner specifically stated that pre - measurements were taken by the Assistant Executive Engineer and staff in the presence of Mr. M. Vijayan, Agricultural Assistant in the Office of the Agricultural Officer, Vettathur. It was also stated that details of measurements and the records relating to such measurements were within the exclusive knowledge of the Engineers concerned and that the petitioner was not liable for failure, if any, on their part. Regarding the second charge that the petitioner failed to insist for the production of invoices of the work by the Convenor as laid down in the Government Order on the subject, the petitioner specifically replied that production of invoices of work by the Convenor was required as per Circular dated 5th May 1993 of the Director of Agriculture only at the time when the final payment of subsidy was to be effected and that in the present case the work was not complete and final payment was not made. It was also stated that advance payment and part payment on the basis of valuation and measurements certified by the Assistant Executive Engineer (Agri.) were made strictly in consonance with the Government Order. Regarding the third charge that the petitioner failed to assure engineering supervision while the construction work was being executed the petitioner stated that the engineering supervision was to be ensured by the Engineers concerned and that she had no administrative control over the Assistant Executive Engineer (Agri.) who was of equivalent rank and was functioning in a separate wing independently. The petitioner also denied the allegation that no muster rolls were maintained for the work of bailing out of water and asserted that the Padasekhara Samithy had maintained muster roll and the same had been seized by the Vigilance Department.