STATE OF KERALA Vs. MOHANA RAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State is in appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which set aside the alleged fixation of liability on a retired Head Master and quashed the revenue recovery proceedings initiated therefrom as illegal and invalid; in a writ petition filed by the wife of the deceased retired employee. The brief facts are these.

(2.) THE respondent's husband retired from service as Head Master of Government High School, Ambalapuzha West on 30.06.1992 and subsequently, expired on 11.12.2004. The liability sought to be fixed on the deceased employee was with respect to an audit objection regarding some expenses incurred while the deceased employee worked as Head Master in G.V. Raja Sports School, Thiruvananthapuram between 06.02.1986 and 22.11.1987, as also, another liability in the Government High School, Ambalapuzha, reported on 21.03.2000; the later long after his retirement. It is also born out from records that the appellant had been suspended and had been reinstated and then allowed to retire without any fixation of liability and without any proceedings pending against him for such fixation. It was on the short ground that there was no order fixing the liability by a competent authority and that there was no notice served regarding the proceedings taken for fixing the liability as provided in Kerala Service Rules, the learned Single Judge set aside the fixation of liability as also the revenue recovery.

(3.) WE notice that the learned Single Judge has elaborately considered each of the documents produced by the Government. In an affidavit dated 20.09.2011, Exts. R3(a) to R3(g) were produced by the Government to substantiate their stand. Ext.R3 (a) was found to be a memo sent in the address of Head Master, Government High School, Ambalapuzha, which was dated 29.03.1993, by which time admittedly the deceased employee had retired. Ext.R3(b), though it is titled as a show cause notice, was found to be an internal communication between the Director of Public Instructions and Deputy Director of Education. Ext.R3 (c) was in turn a communication from the Deputy Director of Education to the Director of Public Instruction, which shows that by letter dated 01.03.1994, the fixation of liability of Rs.14,64,838.90 was modified as Rs.14,66,450.90. Though both the communications show a copy marked to the employee, there is absolutely no evidence as to the actual service. Ext.R3(d), though probably addressed in the name of the employee, was returned with the endorsement "no such addressee" as was evidenced from Ext.R3(e), the returned postal cover. Ext.R3(f) (1 and 2) were communications from the deceased employee, in the year 1997 seeking for time, again many years after his retirement which also does not evidence service of a notice before retirement or a proceeding initiated prior to retirement. Ext.R3(g) was also found to be not evidenced as served on the deceased employee.