JUDGMENT : The petitioner, who retired as the Headmistress of the New U.P. School, Easwaramangalam P.O., has filed this writ petition, challenging essentially the liability created against her, by various orders issued by the respondents herein. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows: 3. The petitioner has stated that she was working as the Headmistress of New U.P. School, Easwaramangalam P.O., Ponnani, (hereinafter referred to as “the school”, for short) for the period from 16.07.1999 to 31.05.2021. The staff fixation of the school for the academic year 2009-2010 was issued on 15.07.2009. However, the Super Check Cell of the 2nd respondent herein, conducted surprise visits in the school on 14.09.2009 and 18.12.2009, preparing reports with respect to the inspections. On the basis of the details gathered pursuant to the said inspection, the Director of Public Instruction issued Ext.P1 show cause notice dated 25.01.2010, proposing to abolish four posts in the school, alleging that 65 students included in the rolls were “bogus”. It is pointed out in the writ petition that the petitioner, being the Headmistress of the school, filed detailed objections to the show cause notice along with some relevant documents/materials to show that, out of the above 65 students, 24 were removed from the rolls on account of long absence, 26 students obtained transfer certificates and left the school and as regards the balance 15 students, it was pointed out that they were continuing with their studies in the same school. It is also pointed out that the certificates issued by the Headmistress of the schools in which the students, after obtaining transfer certificates, joined were also produced along with birth certificates of the students, age relaxation orders issued by the 4th respondent etc. 4. However, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P2 order dated 02.06.2010, finding that, seven students mentioned in Ext.P1 show cause notice are genuine. Therefore, as regards the balance 58, the 2nd respondent concluded that they were “bogus” and thereby abolished four posts in the school as proposed in the show cause notice. Though a revision petition was preferred, the Government by Ext.P3, rejected the same. Against the said proceedings, the petitioner filed W.P(C) No.14984 of 2011 and by Ext.P4 judgment dated 28.01.2021, this Court found as under: “6. Though a revision petition was preferred, the Government by Ext.P3, rejected the same. Against the said proceedings, the petitioner filed W.P(C) No.14984 of 2011 and by Ext.P4 judgment dated 28.01.2021, this Court found as under: “6. I have examined the impugned orders and notice therefrom that the reason why the Super check Cell and the Director of Public Instructions found the admissions of fifty eight students mentioned in Ext.P5 to be 'bogus', is because they were not present either of the two days when the Team visited the School. There is no doubt that a prima facie impression can always be drawn in such circumstances that these students are not genuine, but I am of the certain view Authorities being given a proper opportunity of establishing otherwise. 7. I say so because, it is possible, on account of some coincidence, that both on 14.09.2009 and 18.12.2009 certain students were absent and this by itself cannot lead to an irrefutable assumption that these students are all 'bogus' and not genuine. What is relevant is whether the School Authorities can establish, by cogent and reliable evidence, that these students were actually and physically admitted to the School; and for such purpose, they can always rely upon various documents, including the Admission Registers, UID documents, Attendance Registers and such other, in substantiation. 8. My observations as afore become relevant in this case because, Sri.M.R.Anison, learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently submits that all documents to prove that the students in question were actually admitted to the School and physically available, were produced before the Educational Authorities but that none of them have been referred to either in Ext.P5 or in Ext.P9 order. 9. Pertinently, the petitioners have produced certain documents before this Court to show that these students were physically available in the School, but I am of the view that it will not be justified or prudent for this Court to look into the same at the first instance and take a decision as to whether they are genuine or otherwise. 10. I am, therefore, of the firm opinion that petitioners must be given an opportunity of establishing that the fifty eight students, mentioned in Ext.P5, were available physically in the School on the relevant days and that they were absent for the reasons to be explained. 11. 10. I am, therefore, of the firm opinion that petitioners must be given an opportunity of establishing that the fifty eight students, mentioned in Ext.P5, were available physically in the School on the relevant days and that they were absent for the reasons to be explained. 11. I am persuaded to this view also because, the petitioners must certainly be given an opportunity of producing all documents in strength of their afore assertion - including those which have already been mentioned above and others - so that the competent Authorities can then take a final decision as to whether the admissions are indeed 'bogus' and whether the petitioners are to be mulcted with liability, as has been directed in the impugned orders. In the afore circumstances and so as to pave way for a fresh consideration of the petitioners' claim, I set aside Ext.P9; with a consequential direction to the competent Secretary of the Government to hear the petitioners again - either physically or through video conferencing - after affording them an opportunity of producing all documents in substantiation, thus culminating in a fresh order in the revision filed by the 1st petitioner - Manager, dated 10.08.2010, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” Thus, the matter stood remitted. The petitioner, after the above remand, filed Ext.P5 detailed argument note and Ext.P6 statement of the absent students with the explanations to be offered before the 1st respondent herein. When the above matter was posted for personal hearing, the petitioner points out in the writ petition that she was on leave, prior to her retirement, handing over the charge to the next senior most teacher, and therefore, representation at Ext.P7 was filed before the Headmaster and Manager of the school, requesting them to produce the originals of the documents referred to in Ext.P5/P6. This is also followed by Ext.P8 request before respondents 1 and 2, to call for the originals of the documents from the school concerned. 5. However, by Ext.P9 order dated 03.10.2021, the 1st respondent has issued a fresh order, dismissing the appeal again. In Ext.P9 order, the 1st respondent has found that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.99,902/-on account of the findings to the effect that there were “bogus students”. 6. The petitioner has, in the meantime, retired on 31.05.2021. 5. However, by Ext.P9 order dated 03.10.2021, the 1st respondent has issued a fresh order, dismissing the appeal again. In Ext.P9 order, the 1st respondent has found that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.99,902/-on account of the findings to the effect that there were “bogus students”. 6. The petitioner has, in the meantime, retired on 31.05.2021. After such retirement, there was an audit conducted in the school on 12.08.2021, as evidenced by Ext.P11 attendance certificate issued by the 6th respondent. Further by Ext.P12, there is an endorsement to the effect that the cash book/vouchers up to 31.01.2017 are verified and found correct. Later, Ext.P32 is issued by the 4th respondent along with Ext.P33 liability certificate. As per the above, the following amounts are fixed as the liability to be satisfied by the petitioner. Sl.No. Name of liability Amount of Liability 1 Due to Bogus Admission SALARY 78726 2 Due to Bogus Admission NOON MEAL 15453 3 Supply of cost of FREE BOOK Due to Bogus Admission 5723 4 SSK from Malappuram 229200 TOTAL 329102 7. It is in the above circumstances that the captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner, seeking to quash Ext.P9 issued by the 1st respondent as also earlier orders. Similarly, the petitioner also seeks to quash Ext.P33 liability certificate issued by the 4th respondent. 8. A counter affidavit dated 18.10.2022 is filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, pointing out that, at the time of inspection by the Super Check Cell, the students who were present in the classrooms could not even identify the names of some of their classmates, and therefore, they were found to be ‘bogus students’, physical presence of the students is very much essential for staff fixation, etc. A counter affidavit dated 30.05.2022 is filed by the 5th respondent in the writ petition, pointing out that the stand of the petitioner that audit up to 2017 was already finalized is incorrect, that on verification it was found that the said audit was never carried out, that copies of the complaints filed by Sri.Dharmapalan M.V. have already been forwarded to the petitioner, that the petitioner is liable to satisfy the amounts fixed by the liability certificate, etc. 9. On 31.03.2023, this Court directed the respondents 5 and 6 to complete the re-audit initiated pursuant to Exts.P36 to P38 and also to submit a report in the matter. 9. On 31.03.2023, this Court directed the respondents 5 and 6 to complete the re-audit initiated pursuant to Exts.P36 to P38 and also to submit a report in the matter. On 18.01.2024, this Court directed the respondents to file a statement with respect to the findings arrived at after the re-audits as above. On the basis of the above order, a statement dated 31.01.2024 is filed, wherein it is pointed out as under; “3. In compliance of the Interim Order dated 31.03.2023 re-audit was conducted and the Office of the Assistant Educational Officer received the report on 22.06.2023. The liabilities recorded against the petitioner is as mentioned below. Total liability amount Rs.3,29,102/- Due to bogus admission salary - Rs.78,726/- Due to bogus admission Noon Meal Rs.15,453/- Supply of Cost of Free Book due to bogus admission Rs.5,723/- SSK from Malappuram Rs.2,29,200/- 4. After re-audit by the SSK and the liability amount was changed to Rs. 9,750/-. The other amount remaining the same. The Office of the AEO, Ponnani receiving the Liability Certificate from SSK on 13.10.2023. Soon after receiving the Liability Certificate of the petitioner this respondent have written a letter to the Accountant General, Thiruvananthapuram to release the amount of Rs.2,19,450/-. After deducting Rs. 1,09,652/- liability amount.” Thus, it was informed to this Court that on the re-audit, the liability has been substantially reduced to Rs.9,750/-. However, there was no change with respect to the amounts sought to be demanded from the petitioner pursuant to the order at Ext.P9. 10. A reply affidavit is also filed by the petitioner, pointing out that, insofar as the audit for the period up to 2017 is already completed and there was no liability, the findings in the re-audit as above may not be correct. 11. I have heard Sri.M.R.Anison, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Justin Jacob, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4. 12. Sri.M.R.Anison, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that; i. The findings contained in Ext.P9, are not correct. ii. He would point out to Exts.P16 to P22 produced before the 1st and 2nd respondents and contend that they have not been taken into account while deciding the question with respect to “bogus admissions”. iii. 12. Sri.M.R.Anison, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that; i. The findings contained in Ext.P9, are not correct. ii. He would point out to Exts.P16 to P22 produced before the 1st and 2nd respondents and contend that they have not been taken into account while deciding the question with respect to “bogus admissions”. iii. He would refer to a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P10 – W.A.No.1288 of 2007 dated 25.06.2009 - and contend that assuming that the findings in Ext.P2 and P9 are correct, there cannot be any recovery from the petitioner. iv. He would point out the endorsement at Ext.P12 dated 31.01.2017 and contend that the audit up to 2017 was already over. v. He would also refer to the judgment in W.A.No.1367 of 2013 dated 22.01.2021 produced as Ext.P15, and would contend that the proceedings initiated on the basis of the complaint filed by Sri.Dharmapalan M.V. was without any justification, since this Court had already found in the above judgment that credibility cannot be extended to the petitions filed by said Sri.Dharmapalan M.V. vi. He would refer to the counter affidavit of the 5th respondent, wherein it is contended that, one of the signatories at Ext.P12 – Sri.V.K.Prasanth had not even conducted the audit in the New U.P. School. In the said counter affidavit at paragraph 4, reference is also made to Ext.R5(b), a letter issued by the said Sri.V.K.Prasanth, denying his signature at Ext.P12. With reference to the above, Sri.M.R.Anison points out that the petitioner had filed I.A.No.5 of 2022 and impleaded both the signatories in Ext.P12 as additional respondents 9 and 10, however, there is appearance only from the side of the additional 10th respondent, who has filed an affidavit, accepting her signature in Ext.P12. Therefore, he concludes his submissions by praying that the proceedings at Ext.P9 as well as the liability certificate at Ext.P33 require to be quashed by this Court. 13. Per contra, Sri.Justin Jacob, the learned Government Pleader, would point out that; i. On both 14.09.2009 and 08.12.2009, when the Super Check Cell carried out inspections in the school, 58 students were not seen there. ii. He contends that the fact that on both these occasions, the students were not available, proves that the said admissions were “bogus”. iii. 13. Per contra, Sri.Justin Jacob, the learned Government Pleader, would point out that; i. On both 14.09.2009 and 08.12.2009, when the Super Check Cell carried out inspections in the school, 58 students were not seen there. ii. He contends that the fact that on both these occasions, the students were not available, proves that the said admissions were “bogus”. iii. He points out that after the re-audit, the amount payable by the petitioner is reduced to Rs.9,750/- and this has to be satisfied by the petitioner. 14. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the connected records. The petitioner is essentially challenging; i. The findings in Ext.P9, as per which, an amount of Rs.99,902/- is sought to be recovered from her on account of the alleged “bogus admissions”. ii. The liability certificate at Ext.P33, seeking to recover the amounts fixed as per Ext.P9 and another amount of Rs.2,29,200/-, pursuant to the audit. It is to be straightaway noticed that the amount of Rs.2,29,200/- has since been reduced to Rs.9,750/-, as reported in the statement dated 31.01.2024. 15. The first issue for consideration in this writ petition is with reference to the findings contained in Ext.P2, as confirmed in Ext.P9. The finding in Ext.P2 is to the effect that on two dates when the Super Check Cell visited the school, 58 students were absent. There is a further statement to the effect that the students who were present in the class could not identify the said “bogus students”, and they were quite unaware of them. However, with respect to the above, this Court, in the first round of litigation, through Ext.P4 judgment, has found that merely because on two dates certain students were absent, it does not lead to any irrefutable assumption that those students are all “bogus” and therefore not genuine. This Court also noticed that the school authority should be permitted to prove by cogent/reliable evidence that those students were actually and physically “admitted” to the school by relying on various documents like admission registers, attendance registers, UID documents, etc. Sri.M.R.Anison is justified in submitting that though the petitioner had produced various evidence like Ext.P16 to P22, they have not been considered while issuing the impugned orders at Exts.P2 and P9. 16. The petitioner had specifically pointed out that, 26 students had obtained transfer certificates and left the school. Sri.M.R.Anison is justified in submitting that though the petitioner had produced various evidence like Ext.P16 to P22, they have not been considered while issuing the impugned orders at Exts.P2 and P9. 16. The petitioner had specifically pointed out that, 26 students had obtained transfer certificates and left the school. It is with respect to that contention that the petitioner produced Exts.P18 to P21 certificates to show that certain students have been admitted to other schools on the basis of the transfer certificates issued by the petitioner. However, in Ext.P2 or in Ext.P9, these documents have not been taken into account. Furthermore, it is also noticed that the petitioner has specifically pointed out that when the matter was taken up for hearing by the 1st respondent, pursuant to the appeal filed against Ext.P2, the petitioner was on leave prior to her retirement, and therefore, she has requested the then Manager/Headmaster, as also respondents 1 and 2, to produce / call for the originals of the documents relied on in the argument notes from the schools. However, there is no reference to the said letters in the impugned orders. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, respondents 1 and 2 are not justified in arriving at an adverse inference as regards the 58 students while issuing Exts.P2 and P3 orders. 17. It is also to be noticed that there is a larger question that was raised by the petitioner before respondents 1 and 2 – as to whether the case of the 58 students can be considered to be “bogus”? The petitioner had relied on the judgment of this Court in Nalini Kumari v. State of Kerala [ILR 1975 (1) Ker. 496] in support of the said contention. However, while issuing Ext.P3 order, in the first round, the said judgment has been brushed aside, finding that the said judgment is only in respect of the involvement of educational officers to enquire into the removal of students in a school after admission, whereas in the case at hand, the steps were taken on the basis of the details collected by the Super Check Cell. In my opinion, the said stand of the 1st respondent does not appear to be correct. In my opinion, the said stand of the 1st respondent does not appear to be correct. It is true that this Court, while rendering the judgment in Nalini Kumari (supra), was considering the provisions of Rule 15 of Chapter XXIII of KER, by which power was given to the educational officer to refix the staff strength of a school, if the same was on the basis of “bogus admission” or attendance or by fraud or misrepresentation, etc. Considering this issue, this Court had found as under; “It goes without saying that bogus admission can be there only if pupils who were not really in existence were admitted. When there is bogus admission, the attendance created by that will also be bogus attendance. Fraud or misrepresentation will be there if without actually admitting a pupil records are created as if that pupil was admitted and attendance marked in respect of that pupil even though that pupil never attended the school. Large scale removals of pupils from the rolls under rule 15, chapter VI of the Rules by themselves cannot attract rule 15, chapter XXIII. Large scale removals may be a reason to create a doubt in the mind of the Educational Officer or at the most to suspect bogus admission. To prove bogus admission the Educational Officer should go deep into the details of the matter and examine individual cases of pupils who are removed for long absence and for other reasons mentioned in rule 15, chapter VI. In this case, not a single case of removal is taken and examined to ascertain whether, as a matter of fact, such a pupil was ever in existence and whether he was actually admitted in the school before his name was entered in the rolls. Ext.P-8 order does not even indicate that the 2nd respondent made any such attempt. Without making such an enquiry into the individual cases of removal from the rolls, it cannot be said that the pupils removed from the rolls were really bogus admissions and they were shown on the rolls purposely to create attendance for getting strength which is more than the actual effective strength of the standard concerned. Without making such an enquiry into the individual cases of removal from the rolls, it cannot be said that the pupils removed from the rolls were really bogus admissions and they were shown on the rolls purposely to create attendance for getting strength which is more than the actual effective strength of the standard concerned. The reasoning that pupils who did not really want to continue their studies till the close of the year were made to attend classes for some days at the beginning of the year by itself cannot justify action under the rule.” In my opinion, the findings rendered by this Court in the above judgment would apply in a case where “bogus admissions” are alleged on the basis of inspections carried out by Super Check Cell also. The allegation raised pursuant to the said inspections are also with respect to alleged admission provided to “non-existent students”. It is noticed that the petitioner had given specific explanations as regards each and every student by producing Ext.P6 tabulated statement. With reference to the details provided in the said tabulated statement, it is to be noticed that the petitioner has given valid explanations like removal from school due to long absence, issue of transfer certificate on account of change of residence, etc. Apart from all the above, it is to be noticed that, from a reference to the above details, it cannot be said that the case built up by the respondents as regards the 58 students would amount to “bogus admissions”. When that be so, the entire basis of the allegations against the petitioner falls to ground. 18. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of this Court in W.A.No.1288 of 2007 (Ext.P10) in support of the contention that, unless and until disciplinary proceedings are taken against the Headmaster on the basis of the alleged findings rendered by the Super Check Cell, no recovery can be had from the Headmaster. There is no case for the respondents that they have taken any sort of disciplinary steps against the petitioner on the basis of the findings in Exts.P2 or P9, assuming that the said findings were correct. Therefore, the orders at Exts.P2 and P9, fixing liability on the petitioner at Rs.99,902/-, are only to be quashed. 19. There is no case for the respondents that they have taken any sort of disciplinary steps against the petitioner on the basis of the findings in Exts.P2 or P9, assuming that the said findings were correct. Therefore, the orders at Exts.P2 and P9, fixing liability on the petitioner at Rs.99,902/-, are only to be quashed. 19. The second issue for consideration is as regards the amounts found to be payable by the petitioner pursuant to the audit, which have been later reduced to Rs.9,750/-. The amount originally sought to be recovered was Rs.2,29,200/-, alleging that the petitioner has not produced documents for carrying out audit for the period up to 2017. The petitioner has relied upon Ext.P12, wherein there is an endorsement regarding audit up to 2017, which has been signed by the accountant and Block Programme Officer. In the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent, reliance was placed on Ext.R5(b) issued by one Sri.V.K.Prasanth, wherein he has denied the signature on Ext.P12. However, a perusal of the signature at Ext.R5(b) and the signature at Ext.P12, appears to be the same. Though the said Sri.V.K.Prasanth is impleaded as additional 9th respondent and notice served from this Court, he has not entered appearance. In Ext.P12, there is one more signatory. The said signatory has been impleaded as additional 10th respondent. She has entered appearance and has also filed an affidavit admitting having signed Ext.P12. Similarly, the petitioner has also relied on Ext.P35, an account book of another school, subjected to audit by the very same two auditors – additional respondents 9 and 10. It is seen that the signature as well as the handwriting in Exts.P12 and P35 are identical. Again, it is also to be noticed that the allegation regarding amounts payable pursuant to the audit originally fixed at Rs.2,29,000/- has been substantially reduced to Rs.9,750/-. However, the basis for such fixation has not been pointed out anywhere. On the whole, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Therefore, this writ petition would stand allowed as under; i. Ext.P9 issued by the 1st respondent and Ext.P33 issued by the 4th respondent would stand quashed. ii. However, the basis for such fixation has not been pointed out anywhere. On the whole, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Therefore, this writ petition would stand allowed as under; i. Ext.P9 issued by the 1st respondent and Ext.P33 issued by the 4th respondent would stand quashed. ii. The respondents to provide the details/ proceedings after the re-audit by the 5th respondent, referred to in the statement dated 31.01.2024 filed by the 4th respondent, to the petitioner herein, and it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the findings contained therein, if she is so advised. iii. The respondents would release the entire pensionary benefits due to the petitioner, after reducing the amount of Rs.9,750/- (Rupees nine thousand seven hundred and fifty only). iv. The withholding of Rs.9,750/- as above would be without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the proceedings, referred to in the statement dated 31.01.2024 referred to, as above.