M KUPPAN Vs. ADDITIONAL BLOCK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had stated that he had joined in service, on 16.2.1968, as a Typist in the Rural Development Department. He was promoted as an Assistant, on 15.9.1981. In the month of May, 1985, he was posted as an Accountant. On 15.10.1986, the petitioner had been transferred to the Social Welfare Department.

(2.) THE petitioner had further stated that from May, 1985, to September, 1986, he was working as an Accountant in the Block Development Office, Tirutani. In the month of January, 1986, he had received a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards shifting of the godown. THE godown had been shifted and the petitioner had shown proper accounts for the amount received in the voucher column in the Advance Register and it was also written in the connected files even before the Month of September, 1986. However, on 17.5.1990, the petitioner was served with the recovery proceedings issued by the Development Officer, Tiruthani, dated 23.3.1990, made in proceedings No.6296/88-V-1 for a sum of Rs.2,000/-. Even though the petitioner had submitted his explanation, on 6.6.1990, no orders were passed for a period of 3 " years thereafter. Again, on 22.11.1993, another recovery order was passed for the same amount of Rs.2,000/- by the Additional Block Development Officer, Tiruthani. On 30.12.1993, the petitioner had replied stating that since the connected files and vouchers were not traceable in the Block Development Office of the Block Development Officer, Tirutani, a fresh receipt for a sum of Rs.2,000/-, as expenses for the transportation done in the month of January, 1986, was being filed.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and void, in view of the fact that the impugned order had been passed after more than 10 years, inspite of the petitioner submitting a number of explanations. THE amount was given to the petitioner as advance in the month of January, 1986. He had left the Department, on 15.10.1986. THE recovery proceedings were ordered nearly 4 years thereafter, on 23.3.1990. THE order for recovery of the amount should have been issued only after conducting an oral enquiry affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to putforth his case. However, there was no charge formulated against the petitioner relating to the advance amount paid to him and the said order had been passed without giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of explaining the reason for the delay in submission of the relevant records relating to the matter.