Kerala High Court
The Chairman And Managing Director vs The Secretary To Government on 24 March, 2023
Bench: S.Manikumar, Murali Purushothaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 19402 OF 2015
PETITIONER:
THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD, MAVELI
BHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-20
BY ADV SHRI N.D.PREMACHANDRAN,SC,SUPPLYCO
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
2 THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
3 THER DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER
CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE 673 020
4 THE TALUK SUPLY OFFICER
CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE 673 020
5 V. SARASWATHI
MANJIMA HOUSE, CHERUVANNOOR, FEROOK P O, KOZHIKODE
673 631
6 THE KERALA LOK AYUKTHA
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.D.BABU
SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR P.
OTHER PRESENT:
K P HARISH- SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)19402/2015 -:2:-
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P15 order passed by the Kerala Lok Ayukta ('Lok Ayukta', for short) in Complaint No.589/2010 directing the petitioner to pay interest to the complainant on the amount of DCRG due to her.
2. The short facts leading to Ext.P15 order are as follows:-
The 5th respondent-complainant (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant' for short), was an employee of the Kerala State Civil Supplies Department. She was working in the Civil Supplies Corporation on deputation during the period from 28.02.1990 to 27.02.1995 and thereafter, from 02.05.1998 to 30.06.2003. After the period of deputation, she worked in the parent department and retired from service on 30.11.2005. The Accountant General, as per proceedings dated 31.11.2005, sanctioned an amount of Rs. 1,26,888/-
as Death cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) to her subject to the production of Non Liability Certificate (NLC). The DCRG was further revised by the Accountant General on 05.06.2007 to Rs. 1,35,336/-. The NLC has to be issued by the District Supply Officer (DSO), Kozhikode, the 4th respondent, the pension sanctioning authority. Since WP(C)19402/2015 -:3:- NLC was not issued and DCRG was not released, the complainant caused lawyer notice to the respondents and the Director of Civil Supplies, the 2nd respondent, issued direction to the DSO to release DCRG and the DCRG was released to the complainant on 10.12.2009. After receipt of DCRG, she preferred Ext. P11 complaint before the Lok Ayukta contending that there is no justification in withholding the NLC and the DCRG and she is entitled to get interest on the DCRG at market rate from 01.01.2006 till 09.12.2009.
3. The respondents before the Lok Ayukta filed statements resisting the complaint. It was contended that, the complainant, while working in the Civil Supplies Corporation and was in charge of Maveli Store, Panniyankara, some irregularities were detected on her part during the audit and she was held responsible for short accounting of Maveli items worth Rs.18,370.75. Accordingly, the Civil Supplies Corporation requested the Director of Civil Supplies to initiate disciplinary action against the complainant for recovery of the loss sustained to the Corporation. The Director of Civil Supplies, informed the Civil Supplies Corporation that, since the complainant has retired from service, action can be taken only with the permission of the WP(C)19402/2015 -:4:- Government. The Government, as per G.O. (Rt) No. 210/09/F&CSD dated 09.07.2009, accorded sanction to the Chairman and Managing Director, Civil Supplies Corporation, the 3rd respondent in the Complaint and the petitioner herein, to take action against the complainant for recovery of the loss sustained by the Civil Supplies Corporation, by revenue recovery proceedings. Pursuant thereto, demand notices were issued to the complainant to recover the amount of Rs.18,370.75. However, the complainant did not respond to any of the notices nor did she remit the amount demanded. On receipt of the lawyers notice on behalf of the Complainant, the Director of Civil Supplies directed the DSO to issue NLC and the DCRG was released to the complainant on 10.12.2009 and the Civil Supplies Corporation initiated proceedings against the complainant under the Revenue Recovery Act for the recovery of the loss caused by the complainant.
4. The Lok Ayukta, by Ext.P15 order, found that the complainant had submitted her pension papers only on 06.01.2007 though she retired on 30.11.2005 and that she cannot claim interest for any period prior to 06.01.2007. However, the Lok Ayukta recommended the 1 st respondent, the Secretary to Government, Food and Civil Supplies WP(C)19402/2015 -:5:- Department, the competent authority, to pay interest to the complainant on the DCRG amount of Rs. 1,26,888/- for the period from 01.04.2007 to 10.06.2007 and for the total gratuity amount of Rs. 1,35,336/- from 10.06.2007 to 30.11.2009 and to take appropriate action for recovery of the said amount from the persons who held the post of District Supply Officer, Kozhikode and Chairman & Managing Director, Supplyco at the relevant time, after fixing their proportionate liability, with notice to them. Challenging Ext.P15 order, the Chairman and Managing Director, Civil Supplies Corporation has filed this writ petition.
5. The contention of the petitioner is that there is no specific allegation in the complaint or any finding by the Lok Ayukta that the petitioner is guilty of laches or negligence for the delay in disbursement of DCRG to the complainant and in the absence of such finding, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for payment of interest. It is also contended that there was liability arising from loss caused by the complainant to the Corporation and as such, no NLC could be issued to her and the delay in disbursement of DCRG was due to the pendency of recovery proceedings and the petitioner cannot be mulcted with the liability to pay interest.
WP(C)19402/2015 -:6:-
6. Heard Sri.N.D Premachandran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.G.Santhosh Kumar, the learned counsel for the 5 th respondent and Sri.K.P Harish, the learned Senior Government Pleader.
7. On going through Ext.P15 order passed by the Lok Ayukta, we find that there is no finding regarding maladministration on the part of the respondents in the complaint. Section 7 of the Lok Ayukta Act provides for matters which may be investigated by the Lok Ayukta and provides that, subject to the provisions of the Act, the Lok Ayukta may investigate any action which is taken by or with the general or specific approval of the persons specified therein, in any case where a complaint involving a ''grievance'' or an ''allegation'' is made in respect of such action. Section 2(b) of the Lok Ayukta Act defines 'allegation' as follows:-
"Section 2(b). "allegation", in relation to a public servant, means any affirmation that such public servant,-
(i)has abused his position as such public servant to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person;
(ii)was actuated in the discharge of his functions as such public servant by personal interest or improper or corrupt motives; or
(iii)is guilty of corruption, favouritism, nepotism or lack of integrity in his capacity as such public servant;"WP(C)19402/2015 -:7:-
8. Section 2(h) of the Lok Ayukta Act defines 'grievance' to mean a claim by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of maladministration. Section 2(k) of the Lok Ayukta Act defines 'maladministration' as follows:-
"Section 2(k). Maladministration means action taken or purporting to have been taken in the exercise of administrative functions in any case where,-
(i)such action or the administrative procedure or practice adopted in such action is unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory; or
(ii)there has been willful negligence or undue delay in taking such action or the administrative procedure or practice adopted in such action involves undue delay"
9. Ext. P11 complaint filed before the Lok Ayukta does not reveal any allegation or grievance in consequence of maladministration. There is no finding regarding maladministration on the part of the respondents in the complaint by the Lok Ayukta to mulct the liability to pay interest for the belated payment of DCRG. Therefore, the recommendation of the Lok Ayukta in Ext. P15 cannot be sustained.
10. Further, while mulcting the liability on the respondents in the WP(C)19402/2015 -:8:- complaint to pay interest, the Lok Ayukta did not advert to their contentions as to the steps taken by them for getting sanction from the Government in terms of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules to proceed against the complainant who had retired from service for recovery of loss caused by her. The Lok Ayukta did not consider whether there was justification in withholding the NLC and DCRG in the aforesaid circumstances. No reason has been stated by the Lok Ayukta for fastening the liability on the respondents in the complaint to pay interest. Ext.P15 order cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside.
Writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE spc/ WP(C)19402/2015 -:9:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19402/2015 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 27/6/2007 EXT.P2: A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9/10/2007 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3: A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/11/2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4: A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/12/2007 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5: A COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.
210/09/F&CSD DATED 9/7/2009.
EXT.P6: A COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO D16-12261/07(1) DATED 25/9/2009 EXT.P7: A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/12/2009 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P8: A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/2/2010 ISSUED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P9: A COPY OF THE NOTICE NO D11-7831/10(1) DATED 10/5/2010.
EXT.P10: A COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 30/9/2009 ISSUED TO THE REPONDENTS 1,2,3,4 AND THE PETITIONER. EXT.P11: A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22/2/2010 FILED BEFORE THE LOK AYUKTA.
EXT.P12: A COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 7/2012 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P13: A COPY OF THE THE LETTER DATED 2/3/2010 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P14: A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24/5/2010 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P15: A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/3/2015 PASSED BY THE LOK AYUKTA.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXTR5(A):TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORIZATION DATED 26.03.2007. EXT.R5(B):TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED ORDER DATED 05.06.2007.