RAMAVARMA THIRUMULPAD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was promoted as District Educational Officer and posted at Muvattupuzha in April 1984 was transferred to Kothamangalam on 2nd July 1984.

(2.) Learned Advocate General pointed out that the third respondent was posted at Kothamangalam on promotion and therefore it is only natural to expect him to be anxious to take charge as early as possible. The anxiety of a promotee to assume office can certainly be appreciated, as long as it is consistent with the relevant provisions of the law. As already indicated, the Government order was passed on 3rd January 1985. It is marked to the second respondent and the officers concerned (through the Director of Public Instruction). In other words, the third respondent could not have secured this order from the Government. The order was intended to be served on him only through the second respondent. The consequential order was passed by the second respondent only on 4th January 1985 and the order is marked to all the officers concerned, the third respondent, secured a copy of this order sufficiently early so as to enable him to proceed to Kothamangalam and assume charge on 5th January 1985. According to the petitioner, a copy of the order was sent to the petitioner only by post and received long after 5th January 1985 It is in this background that the contentions will have to be appreciated.

(3.) Learned counsel for the third respondent refers to the provisions in Art.81 of the Kerala Financial Code, Volume I, in support of the assumption of office by the third respondent. This Articles states that every transfer of charge of a gazetted officer should be reported by post on the same day to the Accountant General and other authorities. As a general rule, the reports of the transfer of charge should be signed both by the relieved and relieving officers. District Officers and the Heads of the Departments should also send copies of their reports to the Chief Secretary to Government on the same day. A copy of the report of the transfer of charge should be sent simultaneously to the Treasury Officers concerned and the copies of the report sent to the Accountant General and the Head of the Department or other authority specified in the departmental Code or Manual should contain in endorsement to this effect. There are three notes to this Article. Note 1 states that if the charge reports are jointly signed by the relieved and relieving officers, countersignature by a superior authority is not necessary. Note 2 states that in cases where the charge reports cannot be signed conjointly by the relieved and the relieving officers due to administrative difficulties, the countersignature of the superior authority should be incorporated in the charge reports before they are communicated to Audit. The Heads of offices will be the authority competent to countersign the charge reports of the gazetted officers working under them. Note III is not of much significance for the purpose of this controversy.