SMT. SANGEETA DEWANJEE Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF TRIPURA, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, THE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, GOVT. OF TRIPURA AND THE HEADMISTRESS, TEBARIA HIGH SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE the petitioner was serving as the Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in the Abhoynagar Higher Secondary School, now Nazrul Smriti Vidyalaya, she was asked by the Head Clerk of the school to prepare the Salary Bills in respect of two Night Guards, namely Ranjit Chowhan and Uttam Debnath in the scale of pay of Rs. 775 -1135 w.e.f. 01.10.1992. Later on, by the memorandum dated 01.12.2004, Annexure -1 to the writ petition, the petitioner was asked alongwith others, why a part of the overdrawn amount to the extent of Rs. 44,617.40 should not be recovered from her. The petitioner, in response to that show cause, had filed her reply dated 16.12.2004, Annexure -4 to the writ petition, stating that she had prepared the salary bills under the instruction of "the Headmaster or the Head Clerk" and as such she should not be saddled with any liability whatsoever. However, by the memorandum dated 11.01.2005, Annexure -6 to the writ petition, it has been observed that the reply of the petitioner was not satisfactory at all and, accordingly, she was directed to deposit the said sum within 15 days. The petitioner had filed a protest representation on 02.02.2005, Annexure -7 to the writ petition, reiterating her stand. But, by the memorandum dated 25.04.2005, Annexure -8 to the writ petition, the petitioner was intimated that her request to absolve her from the liability of payment had been regretted and she was requested to deposit the said amount of Rs. 44,617.40. However, payment by instalment was allowed to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner has approached this court by filing this writ petition.

(2.) BY the order dated 02.09.2005 passed in C.M. Appl. No. 341/2005, arising from this writ petition, the recovery of the said amount pursuant to the memoranda dated 11.01.2005 and 25.04.2005, had been stayed till the returnable date. Later on, by the order dated 05.10.2005, the interim order passed on 02.09.2005 was allowed to be continued till further orders. In view of this, by the order dated 05.10.2005 the said petition, being C.M. Appl. No. 341/2005 was disposed of. The respondents did not approach this court for vacating the said order and, as such, the said interim order is still in force. Therefore, the petitioner, as stated, has not paid any amount pursuant to the memoranda dated 11.01.2005 and 25.04.2005, Annexures 6 and 8 respectively to the writ petition.

(3.) MR . Ghosh, learned counsel has further submitted that in view of the said judgment and order dated 20.05.2004, the petitioner cannot be stated to be one of the erring officials. He has continued to submit that, it is the Headmaster and the Head Clerk who were responsible for releasing the pay and allowances of the said two night guards in the regular pay scale of Rs. 775 -1135 w.e.f. 01.10.1992 having no order from the competent authority. In the judgment and order dated 20.05.2004, it has been clearly observed that "the payment of regular pay and allowances to the petitioners were allowed by the concerned D.D.O.". Only after the competent authority had discovered the fact that the petitioners of W.P. (C) No. 65/2004, namely Ranjit Chowhan and Uttam Debnath have been paid the regular pay and allowances, the respondents stopped such payment and directed recovery of the amount received in excess by those persons. The said order of recovery was under challenge in that writ petition. By dint of the said judgment and order dated 20.05.2004, it was directed that 50% of the over -drawn payment may also be recovered from the erring officials and hence the said show cause dated 01.12.2004 was issued for recovery of 50% of the amount drawn in excess by those two night guards from 'the erring officials'.