ORDER :

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent in her proceeding in Na.Ka.No.1459 of 2013/a3 dated 13.08.2014 and to quash the same.

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents culminated in the impugned orders passed by the fourth respondent in his proceeding in R.C.No.1459/2013 (A.3) dated 31.08.2014 and proceeding in R.C.No.1459/2013 (A.3) dated 31.08.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to settle the retirement benefits to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 24% per annum with effect from 01.09.2014.)

1. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

2. The petitioner, while serving as a Village Administrative Officer (VAO) was served with a charge memo dated 10.06.2013, stating that owing to the incorrect list of beneficiaries for grant of drought relief to the affected farmers, the Government had incurred a loss of Rs.5,23,050/-. Pursuant to the charges, an enquiry was conducted and based on proved charges under the inquiry report dated 18.03.2014, the second respondent herein had passed the impugned order dated 13.08.2014, directing the petitioner to pay the amount of loss incurred by the Government amounting to Rs.5,06,550/- together with 40% penalty amounting to Rs.2,02,620/-. The said order is under challenge in W.P.No.23369 of 2014. Subsequently, since the petitioner was due to retire on 31.08.2014, he was placed under suspension on 31.08.2014 and on the same day, another order was passed by not permitting him to retire on the date of superannuation. These two orders are under challenge in W.P.No.5034 of 2015.

3. In the enquiry, the only finding against the petitioner was that, in his reply to the charges, he had admitted the lapses committed by him while preparing the beneficiaries list and therefore he is liable for the loss that had occurred to the Government. However, a perusal of the reply, as well as the further representation pursuant to the inquiry report, reveals that though the petitioner has stated that some inadvertent mistakes may have occurred, he had taken a specific stand that after preparation of the beneficiaries list for the drought relief, he had forwarded the same to the Revenue Inspector, Zonal Deputy Tahsildar and Tahsildar, who had all accepted the beneficiaries list. He had further stated that no action has been taken against the other officials, but he had alone been charged for the mistake.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the present Writ Petitions, the petitioner has raised this specific ground that, though the list of beneficiaries was approved by the Revenue Inspector, Zonal Deputy Tahsildar and Tahsildar, he alone has been targeted. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, this fact is admitted, but a stand is taken to the effect that, it is the “primary responsibility” of the petitioner to prepare the beneficiaries list and therefore he alone is liable for the revenue loss to the Government.

5. I am not in agreement with such a stand taken by the respondents. The VAO, who is in the lowest of the ranks among the revenue officials, may have been given the responsibility to prepare the list of beneficiaries, but such a list is subject to verification and approval by the other higher officials, which includes the Revenue Inspector, Zonal Deputy Tahsildar and Tahsildar. The forwarding of the list of beneficiaries for the drought relief, by the VAO, to the Revenue Inspector, Zonal Deputy Tahsildar and thereafter to the Tahsildar is not an empty formality and these higher officials are not expected to simply endorse the list of beneficiaries. If it is found that there are some mistakes in the list which may cause revenue loss to the Government, then all the officers who had approved the list prepare