B PARAMESWARAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An appeal from judgment dated 28-10-1997 in O.P.No. 14331 of 1996 has been filed by the defeated petitioner. The challenge made in the Original Petition principally was against Ext.P5 which directed recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,33,993/- from the petitioner/appellant. The appeal filed therefrom had been rejected by the Government. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri. P.K. Ashokan submits that the contention as had been raised by the petitioner had practically been overlooked by the learned Judge and therefore, interference is warranted.

(2.) We may refer to the brief facts which might be necessary for disposal of the appeal. Petitioner had been functioning as Radiographer Grade-II attached to the E.S.I. Hospital, Olarikkara. It seems that there were certain complaints against the functioning of the Institution and a memo had been issued to the petitioner on 5-9-1991 pointing out that there was anomaly found in the stock of X-ray films when verification was conducted by the Resident Medical Officer. In the reply submitted by the petitioner, he had adverted to the deficiency in the system that was prevailing there and he could not have been answerable for the shortage of X-ray films, since a number of persons had occasion to handle films in his absence and it would not have been possible to allege that he was responsible for the shortage. In the reply (Ext.P10), he had also indicated that he was aware of his responsibility to replenish the deficiency in the stock items and he may be granted six months time for making good the loss.

(3.) There is nothing to indicate that the matter was proceeded with thereafter. The shortage at that time was noted as 900 films of size 12" x 15" and 50 films of size 12" x 10". Further inspections had been there in later years, which showed greater loss, on various counts not only as shortage but also because of deterioration of the quality of films. There was no proper maintenance of records and supervisory lapses were alleged. These deficiencies had been codified to charge sheet as Ext.P1 dated 22-1-1993 and the petitioner had been directed to explain the 14 charges. Similar memos were also issued to three other officers. Ext.P2 is the explanation submitted by the employee concerned and according to him, none of the allegations had any merit since he had discharged his duties as was expected of a responsible Government servant. He claimed of an exemplary service record and the proceedings were therefore misconceived.