Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 40965
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, P.M. MANOJ, JJ
STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
THE MANAGER – Respondent
WA 1124/2024
MISS. NISHA BOSE, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN, SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
The Manager of an aided school is liable for financial losses due to irregularities, including bogus admissions, and recovery can be initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act, ensuring adherence to due process.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Education Rules, 1959 - Rule 7(4) - Revenue Recovery Act - Recovery of loss due to bogus admissions and sanctioning of additional divisions in school - Manager held responsible for irregularities leading to monetary loss to Government - Recovery initiated against Manager under provisions of Revenue Recovery Act - Manager's failure to provide evidence to counter allegations of the Super Check Cell - Court emphasized the need for adherence to natural justice in recovery proceedings. (Paras 6, 15, 18)
(B) Education Policy - The role of the Manager in aided schools as a trustee responsible for compliance with educational regulations and financial integrity - Irregularities by the Manager can lead to serious consequences. (Paras 14, 16)
Facts of the case:
The writ appeal challenges the recovery of losses incurred by the Government due to 320 bogus admissions in AMUP School, leading to excess teacher posts and salary payments. The Manager was found liable for these irregularities.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Manager is responsible for the financial loss caused to the Government and that recovery can be initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act, provided due process is followed.
Issues: The main issues were the Manager's responsibility for the bogus admissions and the legality of the recovery process initiated against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Manager, as a trustee, is responsible for the school's operations and any irregularities leading to financial loss, and emphasized the need for due process in recovery actions.
Result: Writ appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2024.
P.M. MANOJ, J.
The above writ appeal is preferred assailing judgment dated 15.01.2024 in WP(C) No. 4278 of 2015.
2. The issue involved in this case is with respect to recovery of the loss caused to the Government due to bogus admissions and sanctioning of additional divisions in the school and its consequential recovery.
3. The writ petition was preferred by the Manager, being aggrieved by the recovery initiated as per Ext.P7, P8, P9 and rejection of the revision by the Government as per Ext.P11 on the allegation that there was violation of Rule 7(4) of Chapter III of Kerala Education Rules , 1959 (for short ‘ KER ’).
4. The 1st respondent herein is the approved Manager of AMUP School, Akhalad under Chavakad Educational Sub District, Thrissur District. After staff fixation, 30 posts were sanctioned as per Ext.P1. However, the Super Check Cell (Malabar Region), Kozhikode on 24.11.2004 conducted a surprise inspection on the basis of complaints received. On that day, due to the bus strike, the classes were not functioning. Thereby the physical verification was not conducted. Later, on 14.02.2005 the Super Check Cell conducted another visit and found that 661 students were absent in the classes out of 1172 on that day. Along with that, some other irregularities, including bogus admissions, were noticed. Thereafter a further visit was conducted on 10.03.2005 to verify the correctness of the facts noticed in the previous visit. During that visit, it was found that the students of suspected bogus admissions were absent on that day also. On enquiry, it revealed that those admissions are only recordical; ultimately, the Super Check Cell detected 320 bogus admissions in the school.
5. In the light of such findings of bogus admissions, the revised staff fixation orders were issued, thereby resulting in a reduction of one class division each in Standard II, III, IV and V and two divisions in Standard VI, VII and reduced 8 posts of primary teachers and one post of Arabic Teacher. Thereby caused huge loss to the exchequer by way of salary paid to the 9 excess teachers. The said re-fixation was challenged by the 1st respondent unsuccessfully. Consequently, sanctioned 22 divisions excluding 320 pupils and reduced 8 class divisions and 8 posts of primary teachers during 2004-05.
6. Initially, it was decided to recoup the loss sustained by the exchequer from the Headmistress, who was responsible for the irregularities. Against this, the Headmistress approached this Court and obtained a favourable order as there were no disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Headmistress in accordance with the rules prescribed and thereby declared that she is not liable to pay any amount to the Government. In the light of such findings, the recovery from the Headmistress was dropped. However, the loss caused to the exchequer was due to adopting unfair means and retaining/obtaining the desired number of divisions by fraud and misrepresentation of facts, bogus admissions, irregular retention, etc. Such irregularities cannot be done without the knowledge and permission of the Manager. The Manager could not produce any substantial evidence to defend the arguments of the Super Check Cell. Thereby it is found that under sub-rule 4 of Rule 7 Chapter III KER , the Manager is responsible for the irregularities that lead to the monetary loss to Teachers/Government.
7. Pursuant to such a finding, it was decided to recover the loss sustained by the teachers/Government from the Manager under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act in force at that point of time. This is specifically relying on Clause (d) of sub-rule 4 of Rule 7 Chapter III KER . Accordingly, Exts.P7, P8 and P9 were issued. This was challenged in WP(C) No.7115/2014.
8. The writ petition was disposed of directing the 1st appellant to take appropriate steps for fixing the liability against the 1st respondent, if it is sustainable under the provisions of KER
