Judgment :- 1. The Kerala Public Accountants Act, 1963 gives large powers to the Collector in the matter of adjudicating claims against persons employed in the service of the Government or of any authority or institution notified in this behalf who satisfy the definition of 'public accountant' in the said Act. It enables the Collector to demand of the Public accountant, to deliver monies, securities for money, documents or other property which, according to the Collector, or Head of the Department or other authority or institution notified, the public accountant is bound to deliver. The public accountant may, on receipt of notice object to the demand. In that case the Collector is in duty bound to enquire into the objections and record a decision. If such decision is against the public accountant or if the public accountant does not object to the claim powers of recovery from the public servant are provided under the Act. Parties aggrieved by the order passed in proceedings under the Act could sue the Government or authority or institution in civil courts by instituting suit within one year from the time the cause of action arises. 2. Normally, the process of adjudication of civil claims is left to the civil court. The Code of Civil Procedure which governs proceedings in civil courts embodies very many safeguards which enables the parties to expect a fair trial. A fair trial necessarily involves safeguards, both by way of securing to parties sufficient opportunity to place materials which support their case and also the guarantee that such materials would be properly looked into and an objective decision reached. The provision as to issue of summons, filing of written statements, calling for additional statements, if any, framing of issues, giving opportunities to the parties to file documents and list of witnesses, summoning and examining witnesses, giving opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and hearing parties after evidence is closed are all necessary ingredients of the fair procedure requisite for reaching a proper decision in any case. When powers of adjudication which result in consequences more or less similar to the consequence of decrees passed by civil courts are vested in authorities such as the Collector under the Public Accountants Act, such powers should be exercised with considerable care and deliberation and the conferment of such powers could be protected from attack against their validity only on the assumption that the powers would be exercised fairly and in a manner acceptable to" judicial conscience. The authorities under the Kerala Public Accountants Act will do well to remember these limitations, the limitations which must be read in to the powers conferred on them by the provisions of the Act. It is quite often seen that power under this and similar enactments are exercised evidently without being conscious of the fact that the adjudications between the parties visit them with serious consequences and therefore must be by the exercise of a judicial mind and by the employment of a judicial process. 3. A notice issued under the provisions of the Kerala Public Accountants Act could be objected to by the person to whom it is issued. If the claim is disputed it has necessarily to be enquired into. S.3 mentions only that the Collector "shall enquire into the objection and record a decision." The brevity of the language of the section is not intended to invest arbitrary powers with the Collector. On the other band, the very fact that the section gives such large powers to the Collector imposes on him the duty of properly conducting the enquiry after giving the parties sufficient and reasonable opportunity to meet the case against them and after giving them an occasion to place their case fairly and squarely before the Collector. Parties should be notified of the dates on which the enquiry is to be held and holding of the enquiry necessarily means that opportunity should be given to the parties to whom notices are issued to produce evidence, if any, that they want to rely upon and if they dispute the liability, the material which is sought to be made use of against them has also to be brought to their notice. It is not necessary that the elaborate procedure that is resorted to in the civil courts is adopted by the Collector in this behalf. It is not necessary that the elaborate procedure that is resorted to in the civil courts is adopted by the Collector in this behalf. All the same, the Collector must bear the trappings of an authority sitting to determine a lis between the parties. If that be not the case and he passes a cursory order rejecting the objections for reasons best known to him, the Collector or other appropriate authority does scant service to his duty and any court before which such an order is under challenge will be compelled to set aside the order. That happens in this case. 4. The petitioner while working as a Work Establishment Store-keeper in the General Stores, Trivandrum in the Public Works Department, during the years 1957 to 1967, is said to have caused loss to Government. In 1967 there was a stores verification of the accounts of the P. W. D. General Stores, Trivandrum by the Assistant Engineer who is said to have reported to the Executive Engineer that there was a prima facie case of fraud detected. The petitioner was asked to show cause as one among those who were responsible. He is said to have explained his position. In continuation of this the Assistant Engineer is said to have sent another communication to the Executive Engineer reporting yet another case of defalcation. To this also the petitioner submitted his explanation. Yet another case also was said to have been detected and yet another explanation submitted. The petitioner was told that his explanations were being examined and pending further investigation it was ordered by the Executive Engineer to recover the value of stores involved in the interim reports of the Assistant Engineer from the store-keeper in charge of the stores and to place the amount recovered under deposit. The value of the stores was calculated at Rs. 13, 174. The petitioner, under protest, deposited this amount. According to the petitioner the matter has not yet been finally disposed of. Subsequently the Executive Engineer directed the petitioner to remit another sum of Rs. 5,674.69 as further liability on account of shortage. This was not deposited by the petitioner. It is said that the petitioner was again given a memo to deposit Rs. 3,146.80 instead of Rs. 5,675. Whatever that be, ultimately the Chief Engineer issued a memo of charges along with a statement of allegations. 5,674.69 as further liability on account of shortage. This was not deposited by the petitioner. It is said that the petitioner was again given a memo to deposit Rs. 3,146.80 instead of Rs. 5,675. Whatever that be, ultimately the Chief Engineer issued a memo of charges along with a statement of allegations. The charges amounted to non-maintenance of the stock ledgers properly and failure to account the store materials worth Rs. 21,502.01. According to the petitioner though he filed his reply denying his liability and answering the the charges nothing has happened thereafter and there has been no adjudication. 5. It is while matters stood thus that the petitioner was served with a notice by the Revenue Divisional Officer calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs. 7,897.59. Apparently this was a notice purported to be under the provisions . of the Kerala Public Accountants Act, 1963. That enables the Collector to issue such a notice. But Ext. P-12 notice was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer who did not indicate in Ext. P-12 notice that the Collector had delegated the power to him though that is the justification now urged in the counter-affidavit. Ext. P-12 was objected to by Ext. P-13, a rather elaborate reply denying petitioner's liability in respect of each of the items. All the same, without any further notice to the petitioner, Ext. P-14 was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. That order, as explained by the counter-affidavit, indicates that the only material on which the Revenue Divisional Officer has acted was the report which he chose to obtain from the Chief Engineer. Naturally the Chief Engineer supported his own earlier report. Thus though the District Collector or his nominee is the authority to decide the matter, it would appear that ,the ultimate decision has been really that of the Chief Engineer. Not that the Chief Engineer's order was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer. But in so far as he acted upon Chief Engineer's report without even calling upon the petitioner to answer it, without even going into the merits of the case, essentially it is the Chief Engineer's report that has ultimately taken the shape of the Revenue Divisional Officer's order. Therefore, there is neither enquiry nor decision within the meaning of S.3(3) of the Kerala Public Accountants Act, 1963. Therefore, there is neither enquiry nor decision within the meaning of S.3(3) of the Kerala Public Accountants Act, 1963. After referring to the case and the objection the Revenue Divisional Officer has made his own observation in this cursory manner: "On enquiry conducted on the objection petition through the Chief Engineer it is seen that the contention raised in the objection petition is baseless and hence the petition is rejected. Sri B. Padmanabha Iyer, former Store-keeper, who is now working as the Work Superintendent, Marine Sub Division No. II, Vizhinjam, was employed in a post within the meaning of S.2(b) of the Kerala Public Accountants. Act, 1963 and he was entrusted with the receipt, custody, possession and control of stores belonging to Government. I find that he is responsible for the loss occurred during his incumbency as store-keeper and the loss sustained by Government has to be recovered from the delinquent Store-keeper". I am afraid that the order has to be vacated without going into the merits any more. 6. Possibly it may have to be vacated for another reason too. It is true that S.8 of the Act enables the Collector by order in writing to delegate all or any of the powers conferred on him by or under this Act to any officer subordinate to him and possibly he has done so as indicated by the counter-affidavit. But when the Revenue Divisional Officer's act is challenged and there is nothing in the order to show that the delegation was made to the Revenue Divisional Officer, the minimum that the Collector is expected to swear to is compliance with the requirement of S.8(2) of the Act. The order of the subordinate to the Collector has to be subjected to confirmation by the Collector who may confirm, modify or annul such order or issue any further orders as he may deem fit. The Revenue Divisional Officer's order by itself will not be valid. In order that it may have legal force it must be subject to the final assessment of the Collector. No such order has been brought to my notice. No such order is pointed out in the counter-affidavit. Possibly the order may have to be vacated for this reason too. 7. In order that it may have legal force it must be subject to the final assessment of the Collector. No such order has been brought to my notice. No such order is pointed out in the counter-affidavit. Possibly the order may have to be vacated for this reason too. 7. I have indicated the guidelines for a proper dealing with a matter like the one under S.3 of the Act because it is more or less of common occurrence that the provisions of the Act are are not properly applied by persons who are invested with the duty to administer the Act. It is possibly because of absence of proper instructions in this matter. The government will do well to take note of this and issue appropriate instructions to alert to the necessity of a proper disposal under the Act when authorities have to exercise powers under the Act. For reasons stated, Ext. P-14 order is quashed. The Original Petition is allowed as above. No costs.