Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a Special Village Officer. He has been directed by Exts. P11 and P13, produced along with the petition, to pay the amount mentioned in Ext. P11, a sum of Rs. 4159.52, towards shortage of paddy that had been collected by the petitioner and which has not been accounted for by him to Government. Ext. P 13 does not mention the amount but it refers to Ext. P11 and concludes by stating that if within three days of the receipt of Ext. P13 the amount demanded by Ext. P11 is not paid disciplinary action will be initiated against the petitioner without further notice. 2. It is, however, seen that prior to Exts. P11 and P13, two memos Exts. P6 and P9 had been issued to the petitioner. Ext. P6 related to the levy of 1966 Punja crop, and Ext. P9 to the 1968 Punja crop. These memos were said to have been issued and have been understood and can be treated as charges levelled against the petitioner under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. Shortly stated the charges levelled against the petitioner are that there has been misconduct or dereliction of duty. The dereliction of duty is said to arise from the disobedience of certain orders for the payment of certain amounts said to be due from the petitioner towards shrinkage of paddy which had admittedly been collected by the petitioner but had been released. It may be necessary to elaborate this point. The petitioner was in charge of carrying out the provisions of the Kerala Rice and Paddy (Procurement by Levy) 0.1966, in certain areas. He in accordance with the provisions therefor, collected the levy and the quantum of the paddy collected is specifically known. All these paddy had not been released. In accordance with the Government instructions the petitioner had been asked to account for the difference and to pay the price of the paddy which was short. He in accordance with the provisions therefor, collected the levy and the quantum of the paddy collected is specifically known. All these paddy had not been released. In accordance with the Government instructions the petitioner had been asked to account for the difference and to pay the price of the paddy which was short. His explanation has always been that considerable time elapsed between the date of procurement of the paddy and the date of the release, that the paddy was at times at least procured immediately after the harvest and due to natural causes of driage and shrinkage the volume had come down, that the percentage of fall is negligent, that actually much more shrinkage and driage are permitted in similar cases and that be is not responsible for the short fall. In his arguments before me counsel also submitted that the release of the paddy is not within the control of the Village Officer as he has to abide by the orders and directions given by the superior officers, that there is no case that the petitioner had been negligent in any manner in the storage of paddy or in taking care of it and that there being no case of any negligence on his part a demand of the price of the short fall which is due to natural causes is arbitrary. 3. The question as to whether there has been any misconduct would depend upon what is the case against the petitioner. As was submitted by counsel for petitioner, no specific case of negligence in the discharge of his duties which had in any manner contributed to the particular short fall is even alleged in any stage of the proceedings. All that has been emphasised is that orders passed requiring the petitioner to pay the costs of the short fall of paddy had not been obeyed. Apparently the persons who framed the charges against the petitioner had in mind sub-clause (a) of Clause (iv) to Sub-Rule (1) of R.11 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. That sub-clause is in these terms: "(a) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to a State Government or the Central Government or to a local authority by negligence or breach of orders". 4. The above penalty can be imposed either for negligence or for breach of orders. That sub-clause is in these terms: "(a) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to a State Government or the Central Government or to a local authority by negligence or breach of orders". 4. The above penalty can be imposed either for negligence or for breach of orders. Negligence, as I said, does not arise in this case. The only other question is whether the penalty mentioned above can be imposed for breach of orders. There can be no doubt that for breach of orders the penalty can be imposed. But certainly it cannot be for breach of any orders. If the order is unjustified or is arbitrary or is one that should not have reasonably been passed, it is difficult, if not impossible, to postulate that an officer must be punished in the manner provided by clause (iv) (a) for disobedience of that order. The orders said to have been disobeyed by the petitioner are the orders demanding the payment of certain amounts of money from the petitioner. Whether he is bound to pay those amounts must depend upon whether he is liable to pay. He can become liable only if it is postulated that he has been negligent so that as a result of some act or default on his part loss has occurred to Government. If, due to natural causes, there has been a short fall, the petitioner cannot be made responsible for the short fall nor can be directed to pay the price of the short fall of paddy. This is so notwithstanding the fact that the Government had passed an order that no short fall will be permitted and that dry paddy alone must be collected and that all the paddy collected must be accounted for. All the paddy collected could not have been accounted for even when there are short falls due to natural causes. Nobody can prevent the shrinkage and driage of paddy and it may not always be possible to collect dry paddy. It is particularly so when the collection is immediately after harvest. So the question as to when paddy was procured, what type of paddy, whether it was dried paddy or fresh paddy newly harvested, that was collected, when was the paddy released and for how long was it in storage, all would arise for consideration. It is particularly so when the collection is immediately after harvest. So the question as to when paddy was procured, what type of paddy, whether it was dried paddy or fresh paddy newly harvested, that was collected, when was the paddy released and for how long was it in storage, all would arise for consideration. It is unjust and unreasonable to say that in all cases where there is short fall, the Village Officer must be made responsible for the short fall. These questions have not been considered in this case. To Ext. P6 the petitioner had filed an explanation Ext. P7. The only communication that the petitioner has received since then are those contained in Exts. P11, P12 and P13, Exts. P11 and P13 do not purport to deal with the questions which arise for consideration and which 1 have indicated above. Ext. P12 states some reasons and that is that the State Government had directed the collection of dried paddy only and that it has been specifically ordered that no short-fall would be permitted. That order cannot be pressed into service in a particular case to see whether the Village Officer has been negligent or committed any other misconduct justifying action under R.11 (1) (iv) (a). The demands contained in Exts. P11 and P13 and Ext. P12 cannot therefore stand. 5. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner raised a larger contention. He submitted that the petitioner is a public accountant and that before he can be directed to make good any loss, the provisions of the Kerala Public Accountants Act, 1963, particularly those in S.3 and 4 thereof, must be complied with, and that there must be an enquiry in all cases where the claim wholly or in part is disputed by the Officer and that there should be a decision by the Collector. Except by any such decision of the Collector, no public accountant can be made liable for any loss. 6. I do not think that for taking disciplinary action against an Officer, even if he be a public accountant, a prior compliance with the provisions of the Public Accountants Act is necessary. If an Officer has been guilty of misconduct action can certainly be taken under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 6. I do not think that for taking disciplinary action against an Officer, even if he be a public accountant, a prior compliance with the provisions of the Public Accountants Act is necessary. If an Officer has been guilty of misconduct action can certainly be taken under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Whether he can be made liable will of course depend on the question whether he has been guilty of any misconduct or disobedience of any reasonable orders. Reasonable is not a word mentioned in clause (iv) (a) of R.11 (1). But it needs no pursuation or argument to say that the orders must be reasonable. Arbitrary, perverse, unjust and unfair orders cannot form the basis of disobedience. 7. I therefore set aside Exts. P11, P12 and P13 in this petition and direct that if any disciplinary action is proposed to betaken against the petitioner, it will be done in accordance with the provisions in the Kerala Civil Services (Classification. Control &Appeal) Rules, 1960 and an opportunity will be granted to the petitioner to make his representation, and a reasoned order will be passed after considering the aspects which I have referred to in this judgment. Before such an order is passed, no demand for any amount from the petitioner as envisaged by clause (iv) (a) of R.11 (1) will be passed against the petitioner. If the petitioner is liable to be proceeded against under the Public Accountants Act, there will be no bar to such proceedings being taken. 8. This petition is ordered on the above terms. But I make no direction regarding costs.