S. G. DODDAKALE GOWDA, J.

( 1 ) ARTICLES of charges frarred under rule 214 of the Karnataka Civil Services rules as against petitioner read thus :-"the report of investigation disclosed that Sri K. Mallappa while functioning as Director of Public instruction (Pry. Edn.) Bangalore gave approval in January 1978 to the appointment of five teachers for the said Institution in excess of the number of teachers that could have been provided to that school as per the norms prescribed by Government under the Grant-in-Aid Code for Primary schools. The strength of the students in the Kamala Nehru Makkala Mandir, bangalore as on 1-6-1976 was 505 and there were 9 teachers. With the appointment of 5 more teachers, the total strength of teachers increased to 14 with effect from 1-6-1976. Though the required number of teachers as per the said code was only 12, Sri k. Mallappa approved the appointment of the five more teachers resulting in the total strength of teachers to 14, when there was provision to appoint only three more teachers. Thus, Sri k. Mallappa exceeded the limit prescribed in the grant-in-aid Code and caused loss of Rs. 53,055-60 to government on account of salary of the 2 surplus teachers. Government have considered the report of the State Vigilance Commission and have decided that since Sri k. Mallappa has sustained pecuniary loss to Government to the tune of rs. 53,055-60. Departmental Enquiry should be conducted against him for recovering the said amount and accordingly pass the following orders. "

( 2 ) VALIDITY or correctness of this proceeding is challenged mainly on three grounds viz. , (i)' after settlement of pension payable to petitioner there remained nothing for the department to held an enquiry; (ii) statement of imputation as contained in charge will not constitute misconduct or negligence; and (iii) in the absence of essential ingredients of Rule 214 of the Rules, proceeding initiated or action taken to hold an enquiry is without jurisdiction and illegal.

( 3 ) UNDISPUTED facts are :- petitioner retired from service on 15. 5. 1980. Article of charge is framed on 8. 12. 1981, but served on petitioner on 10. 12. 1981 in respect of an incident that has occurred in the year 1978. Pension claim has been settled as per endorsement dated 26. 8. 1980 vide Annexure-B and 75 per cent of DCRG has also been ordered to be paid-vide Annexure-C, and what remains to be paid is only 25 percent of DCRG. Though there is nothing left with Department to with-hold, it is submitted on behalf of respondent that state is competent to deduct out of payment to be made very month, hence, i find no substance in the first contention.

( 4 ) NOW, coming to second contention, it is urged by Sri U. L. Narayana rao that petitioner has not transgressed any provisions of law, rules or regulation which has resulted in loss to State. In support of his contention, it is contended that what was permitted by petitioner is in consonance with provision contained in Grant-in-Aid Code. Particular averment on this aspect in additional statement of facts filed reads thus :-"it is further submitted that as seen from the impugned notice-Annexure-D, that the allegation made against the petitioner is that the petitioner made an order in January 1978 for appointment of five more teachers in respect of Kamala Nehru Makkala Mandira, bangalore, in excess of the number of teachers that could have been provided to the said school as per the norms prescribed by the Government under the Grant-in-Aid Code for Primary schools. It is further averred in the said notices that the strength of the students in the said Institution in question as on 1/6/1976 was 505 and that there were 9 teachers, as a result of which, with the appointment of 5 more teachers, the total strength of teachers increased to 14 with effect from 1/6/1976 and though the required number of teachers as per the Grant-in-Aid code was only 12, the petitioner purported to have approved five more teachers, render

Click Here to Read the rest of this document