P.K. DIVAKARAN Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner retired as a Headmaster, from the School under the management of the 3rd respondent, on 31.03.1998. He was the Headmaster of the School from 01.07.1985 to 31.03.1998. It would appear that the respondents conducted an audit in the School, for the period from 15.06.1983 to 31.03.1998, on various dates between 06.10.1998 and 16.11.1998, as evident from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. It was noticed that various School records for the period aforementioned were missing and the loss to the Government, assessed based on the missing School records, was sought to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner's liability in connection with the discrepancies noted in the audit was fixed at Rs. 1,89,630.10/ -. The petitioner approached this Court through O.P. No. 24817 of 1999 against the alleged arbitrary fixation of liability on him. During the pendency of the writ petition, the 2nd respondent fixed the final liability of the petitioner at Rs. 1,57,513/ -. Thereafter, by an interim order dated 02.02.2001 in the said writ petition, this Court stayed the operation of the order of the 2nd respondent and directed him to reconsider the issue after hearing the petitioner. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent considered the matter again and by Ext. P2 order fixed the liability of the petitioner at Rs. 55,193/ -. Based on Ext. P2 order, the writ petition itself was disposed by this Court directing the respondents to disburse the DCRG amount after deducting the amounts, found due from the petitioner in Ext. P2, and leaving open the petitioners right to challenge Ext. P2 order if he chose to do so. The petitioner thereafter challenged Ext. P2 order in O.P. No. 33388 of 2001. That Writ petition was disposed of by Ext. P4 judgment which directed the petitioner to approach the Government through an appropriate representation. The petitioner, thereafter, filed Ext. P5 representation before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner by Ext. P6 order dated 21.01.2008. It is challenging Ext. P2 order of the 2nd respondent and Ext. P6 order of the 1st respondent that the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent wherein it is stated that the audit of the accounts and registers for the period from 15.06.1983 to 31.03.1998 was conducted in the School prior to the retirement of the petitioner. The audit party from the office of the 2nd respondent had gone to the School on 22.07.1997 and directed the Headmaster to produce all the relevant records and registers, especially Cash Book, Treasury Bill Book, Treasury Pass Book and vouchers of expenditure. It was noted, however, that many of those records were not produced for audit by the petitioner. It was thereafter that a detailed audit was conducted at the School between 06.10.1998 and 16.11.1998 and, in the absence of production of the records by the petitioner, the monetary value attributable to the objections pointed out by the audit were fixed as a liability of the petitioner. The counter affidavit also refers to a dispute that was pending between the Manager of the School, the petitioner, a Clerk and a Peon of the School in connection with the missing records of the School. The petitioner, however, maintains that he was not in any way involved in the dispute that was raised by the Manager of the School and he was innocent in the matter regarding the missing records.

(3.) ON a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that this is a case were the liability was fixed on the petitioner, who retired as Headmaster of the School on 31.03.1998. The liability itself was fixed pursuant to an audit that was conducted in the School between 06.10.1998 and 16.11.1998. The audit relates to the period from 15.06.1983 to 31.03.1998. There is no provision that is brought to my notice that empowers an audit Committee to audit accounts in a School for a period covering 15 years. The provisions of Chapter XV of the KER, and in particular Rule 13 thereof, make it clear that every School should be inspected thoroughly at least once in a School year and visited at other times as frequently as circumstances will permit. The scope of the enquiry during an inspection is indicated in Rule 9 of the Chapter XV. An overall reading of Chapter XV would indicate that the inspections in the Schools, and the necessary audit in respect of the accounts of the Schools, should be done periodically and at least once in a year. The provisions do not indicate the existence of a power in the Educational Authorities to embark upon an audit pertaining to a period which can go up to 15 years prior to the date of the inspection. The provisions indicate rather that the period, for which the inspection is conducted, should be proximate in time to the date of inspection. In the instant case, as already noted, the period for which the inspection was done covered a span of 15 years and was done at a time when the petitioner had already retired as a Headmaster of the School on 31.03.1998. No doubt, the records would indicate that there was an inspection done even prior to the date of retirement of the petitioner and at that time the petitioner was asked to produce certain records and registers. These records and registers also however, pertained to the period from 1983 to 1998. I do not think the petitioner can be faulted for not having information regarding records which pertained to the aforementioned period more so when called upon to furnish details as late as in 1997 and 1998. I find that Ext. P2 and P6 orders, which fix a liability on the petitioner by drawing an adverse inference against him with regard to missing files and registers that pertained to a period as far removed as 15.06.1983, cannot be legally sustained in the absence of any express provision that authorises the Education Authority to pass orders based on such audits. As no such provision has been brought to my notice, I am of the view that Exts. P2 and P6 orders cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, I quash Exts. P2 and P6 orders and direct the respondents to release the amounts withheld from the petitioner, consequent to Ext. P6 order, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The amounts shall also carry interest at 6% per annum from 31.03.1998 till the date of payment.