KOOTHA PILLAI Vs. COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACTION of the respondents in initiating departmental proceedings, at the fag end of retirement and the order permitting the petitioner to retire subject to the conditions of recovery from retiral benefits and disciplinary action, proposed to be action after retirement, are under challenge. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondents to settle all the retirement benefits, monetary as well as service, with appropriate interest till the payment and damages.

(2.) FACTS leading to the Writ Petition are as follows:The petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk/Junior Assistant, by direct recruitment on 5.11.1960. He was promoted and posted at Salem Municipality as Assistant cum Accountant. He was working as Store Keeper in Salem Municipality from 13.7.1992 to 30.6.1992. Thereafter, he was posted as Cashier. Two other individuals posted as Store Keeper did not join duty in the said Municipality and therefore, the Commissioner of Salem Municipality orally instructed the petitioner to look after the stores in addition to the post of Cashier. His predecessor Thiru. A.V. Venugopal, Store Keeper in the above said Municipality worked for about seven years till 12.7.1992. According to the petitioner, while Thiru. A.V. Venugopal was transferred to Mettur Municipality, he had failed to handover the charge of the stores and all the connected records. Though there were several audit objections from the year 1990-91 to 12.7.1992, till he was relieved from Mettur Municipality, he had not taken any steps to settle the objections, while he was working as Store Keeper and he had also taken away all the records connected to the audit objections. It is the contention of the petitioner that though the above facts were brought to the notice of the Municipal Engineer and Commissioner, Salem Municipality, unfortunately, it was not taken care of properly and no action was taken against him, till date of his retirement.

(3.) THE petitioner has further submitted that during his tenure, he had served as Market Superintendent (Assistant Cadre) from 22.5.1985 to 7.4.1988. THEn he was transferred to Suramangalam Municipality by the first respondent and posted as Revenue Inspector (Assistant Cadre). He had served as Revenue Inspector from 8.4.1988 to 19.4.1989 in Suramangalam Municipality. Again the petitioner was transferred and posted as Assistant in the Salem Municipality. THE petitioner has served as Assistant from 20.4.1989 to 7.11.1989 in Health Section and from 8.11.1989 to 12.7.1992 as Assistant (E1) in Engineering Section. He was transferred from E1 Section and posted as Store Keeper from 13.7.1992 to 30.6.1993. THE petitioner is alleged to have caused loss to the Salem Municipality, as detailed hereunder:(1)Advance drawn by the petitioner from Salem MunicipalityRs.25,000(2)As per Audit Objection, Paragraphs 9, 10 & 16/1990-91, Paragraphs 28 & 29/1991-92 and Paragraphs 37 & 47/1992-93 under World Bank Assistance SchemeRs.5,92,975(3)As per Audit Objection, Paragraphs 30, 36 & 37/1991-92 under Water Supply SchemeRs.2,04,912(4)Loss caused under the head leases, Rents and LicensesRs.35,16,268(5)Loss caused due to wrong fixation of pay to the petitioner as pointed out by the audit under General Fund AccountRs.3,670(6)As per Audit Objection, Paragraphs 33/1990-91 and 11/1992-93 under World Bank Scheme amount to be adjustedRs.74,17,000(7)As per Audit Objection, Paragraph 40/1992-93 under Water Supply SchemeRs.10,82,289(8)Towards the balance of Festival and T.A. AdvanceRs.975(9) Loss caused due to non collection of property tax and vacant site tax relating to the year 1985-86 which became barred by limitationRs.6,055Rs.1,28,49,144.