L. THANAMMAL Vs. THE DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as the Warden in the Government Girls Hostel at Adumanai between September, 2003 and August, 2006. In the capacity of the Warden of the Hostel, the petitioner had to spent money for purchasing groceries, etc., for serving food to the hostel students. The petitioner also duly did so. Subsequently, Audit was conducted into the accounts of the said hostel for the period 2001 -2002 to 2004 -2005, during which it was found that the petitioner had spent a sum of Rs. 28,788/ - in excess of the prescribed amount. In this regard, the second respondent by his proceedings in J1/65131/05, dated 29.05.2006, issued an order to the Headmaster of the School concerned to recover the said amount from the petitioner. That order was passed even without affording any opportunity. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No. 6746 of 2007 before this Court, challenging the said order. By order dated 02.11.2007, this Court set aside the said order on the ground that before the order was passed, no opportunity whatsoever was given to the petitioner. However, this Court made it clear that it was open to the respondents to issue fresh notice to the petitioner calling for objections and then to pass orders, after affording sufficient opportunity.

(2.) THEREAFTER , the 2nd respondent by his proceedings in R.C.J5/21195/07, dated 25.01.2008, issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why a sum of Rs. 28,788/ - should not be recovered from her. The petitioner duly submitted her explanation on 15.02.2008, denying her liability. Her stand was that she spent the money only within the norms prescribed by the Department. Having considered the same, the second respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka. No. J5/21195/07, dated 06.04.2009, had directed the 3rd respondent to recover the said amount from the petitioner. The third respondent, in turn, has passed a consequential order by her proceedings in Na.Ka. No. 49/2006, dated 08.06.2009, directing the petitioner to pay the said amount. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.

(3.) IN the counter filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that the petitioner had spent an excess amount than the norms prescribed in G.O. Ms. No. 191, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 13.08.2003. But the petitioner contends that G.O. Ms. No. 191 does not put any ceiling in expenditure. According to her, it is only a guideline.