Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VARGHESE C. PETER versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


VARGHESE C. PETER v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION - WP(C) No. 19831 of 2007(J) [2007] RD-KL 13454 (18 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 19831 of 2007(J)

1. VARGHESE C. PETER,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
... Respondent

2. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL,

For Petitioner :SRI.BABU PAUL

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER

Dated :18/07/2007

O R D E R

A.K.BASHEER, J.

W.P.(C)No.19831 OF 2007

Dated this the 18th day of July, 2007



JUDGMENT

Grievance of the petitioner who is a retired Headmaster of an aided school is that his retrial benefits are being withheld without any justifiable or valid reasons.

2. It is on record that petitioner had retired from service on March 31, 2005. But according to the Department the delay in disbursement had occurred because it was noticed that there were certain liabilities to be discharged by the petitioner. It is contended by the respondents that the Text Books officer had reported that the petitioner, while he was working as Principal and teacher in charge in St. Sebastian Higher Secondary School, Vazhithala from June 1, 1999 to April 30, 2002, Department had suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.1,97,288/- due to failure to observe the guidelines in the matter. The above sum represented the value of the books which were kept in the school. Similarly, while the petitioner was working as Principal in the school at Karimannoor during W.P.(C)No.19831 OF 2007 the period 2002 to 2005, a further loss of Rs.1,44,659/- was caused to the Department because of his failure in discharging his duties and responsibilities in a proper manner. At that time, he was in charge of text books. Petitioner contends that the above allegations are totally baseless and untenable.

3. Anyhow, these are matters which have to be considered at the departmental level. I am of the view that the request made by the petitioner for a direction to release his retrial benefits at this stage cannot be granted. However, finality has to be given to the above issue by the departments concerned expeditiously, particularly since petitioner had retired more than two years ago.

4. In the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to additional respondent no.3 to ensure that the proceedings, if any, contemplated against the petitioner in respect of the alleged liabilities proposed to be fastened on him are concluded as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from W.P.(C)No.19831 OF 2007 the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The department concerned shall ensure that the petitioner is afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard in the matter. It will be open to the petitioner to raise all his contentions before the said authority. Petitioner shall produce copies of the writ petition and counter affidavit along with a copy of the judgment before the authority concerned for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

jes


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.