JUDGMENT K. Bhaskaran, J. 1. The petitioner, who was once a Lower Division Typist in the Block Development Office, Manjeri, was ultimately dismissed from service as per the order dated 26th June 1976 of the 1st respondent, the District Collector, Malappuram with effect from 24th March 1966 on the ground of misconduct of misappropriation proved against him. It is not necessary to state in detail as to what transpired later except to note that the writ petition, O.P. No. 2147 of 1977 filed by the petitioner to challenge the order of dismissal was dismissed and that dismissal was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court declining to entertain the writ appeal, W.A. No. 123 of 1980, filed against the decision of the learned Single Judge. It is thereafter the notice dated 19th August 1977 purported to be under S.3(2) of the Kerala Public Accountants Act, 1963 (hereinafter called 'the Act') was issued by the 2nd respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Perinthalmanna to the petitioner. Ext. P2 is the copy of the objection dated 10th September 1977 filed by the petitioner to Ext. P1 notice. In Ext. P2 the petitioner had stated inter alia that the 2nd respondent had no jurisdiction to deal with the petitioner's case, as, according to him, it was only the Collector who had the jurisdiction in the absence of a delegation in favour of the 2nd respondent. It was also stated therein that the petitioner was not a Public Accountant within the meaning of S.2(b) of the Act and that the procedure contemplated under S.3(2) of the Act was not followed by the 2nd respondent while fixing the liability of the petitioner. In the meanwhile revenue recovery proceedings were initiated for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,500 purported to be the loss sustained by the Government. The revenue recovery proceedings initiated were challenged by the petitioner in O.P. No. 1973 of 1980 B which was disposed of by this Court by the judgment, dated 13th June 1980 a true copy of which is Ext. P3. The operative portion of the judgment, Ext. P3, reads as follows: "In the circumstances stated there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Perinthalmanna to consider and dispose of Ext. P2 representation as expeditiously as possible if it has not already been disposed of. Till the decision on Ext. P3. The operative portion of the judgment, Ext. P3, reads as follows: "In the circumstances stated there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Perinthalmanna to consider and dispose of Ext. P2 representation as expeditiously as possible if it has not already been disposed of. Till the decision on Ext. P2 is communicated to the petitioner, the revenue recovery proceedings initiated as per Ext. P3 shall be kept in abeyance." Pursuant to the direction given in Ext. P3 judgment the 2nd respondent held a hearing giving an opportunity to the petitioner to state his case. The points raised by the petitioner are stated as follows in Ext. P4 order itself: "1. that the Assistant Collector has no jurisdiction to proceed since the procedure contemplated under S.3(3) of Kerala Public Accountants' Act, 1963 is not adhered to; 2. that to initiate recovery proceedings, the Government should have claim against him. There was no finding after the enquiry conducted in the course of disciplinary proceedings that he had himself appropriated public money; 3. that the statement as per sub-s.2 of S.3 of the Act, was not prepared by the District Collector nor any other officer submitted statement to the District Collector. The District Collector should have recorded the decision if he had satisfied of the claim; everything proceeded under the presumption that the contemplated procedure was adhered to. No show cause notice was given to him for the proposed recovery action; 4. that he is not a public accountant as per definition. He was never entrusted with public money or document; 5. that notice of demand should be sent by the District Collector alone as per requirement, and if at all any delegation of powers was done by the District Collector and S.8 of the Act the same should have been by an order which is lacking in this case". After hearing the petitioner the points raised were disposed of by the 2nd respondent entering the following finding with respect to each one of them: "1. that the point relating to jurisdiction does not apply because the District Collector had delegated his powers under S.8 of the Act to the Revenue Divisional Officer in his order No. A. 46777/ 77, dated 8th August 1977, 2. that the point relating to jurisdiction does not apply because the District Collector had delegated his powers under S.8 of the Act to the Revenue Divisional Officer in his order No. A. 46777/ 77, dated 8th August 1977, 2. that the claim of the Government was established in the findings at the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, and the absence of office seal in the demand notice does not materially affect the case as the notice is found a genuine one, 3. that the show cause notice was found provided in the demand notice itself, 4. that by reason of being employed in the service of the Government, Sri V. P. Mohammed was entrusted with the custody of the security for money, document and instrument of near money which was the property of the Government, 5. that while he was in service, the petitioner was a public accountant, and that it is not required of Revenue Divisional Officer at this stage to see if he was a public accountant then and he is only required to effect recovery, 6. that the notice of demand is legal and the proceedings for effecting the recovery of the amount due to Government are in accordance with the procedure". 2. I have no hesitation in holding that the 2nd respondent did not adhere to the procedure contemplated on the question of jurisdiction. The submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is that even though the 2nd respondent is seen to have stated in Ext. P4 that the Collector's powers under the Act had been delegated to the Revenue Divisional Officer under S.8 of the Act as per the Collector's order No. A. 46777/77, dated 8th August 1977, it is not free from doubt whether the delegation was for effecting recovery of the amount mentioned by the Collector's proceedings, if any, or generally or particularly delegating the power under the Act by proper order in writing in terms of S.8 of the Act. In support of his contention the counsel for the petitioner submitted that in Ext. In support of his contention the counsel for the petitioner submitted that in Ext. P4 order the stand taken by the 2nd respondent that it was not required by the Revenue Divisional Officer at that stage to see if the petitioner was a public accountant then and he was only required to effect recovery indicated that the delegation of powers by the Collector could have been only for effecting recovery of the amount. 3. In terms of S.3 of the Act where the Government had any claim on the public accountant for moneys, securities for money, documents or other property, the officer concerned should draw up a statement of the particulars of the said claim, and, if he is not a Collector, may send the statement to the Collector in whose jurisdiction such accountant is or was employed. The Collector, when he himself recorded the statement as aforesaid may, and on receipt of such statement, from the Head of the Department of the Government, other authority or institution would by writing under his official seal and signature, require the moneys, securities for money, documents or other property, to be delivered either immediately to the person bearing the said writing or to such other person on such date and at such place as the writing may specify. Such notice of demand might be served on the public accountant in the same manner as a summons has served on a defendant under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is also provided in sub-s.(3) of S.3 that if the public accountant does not satisfy the demand, but he appeared and objected to the claim wholly or in part, the Collector was required to enquire into the objection and record a decision. It is therefore clear that the power or the scope of the investigation under the relevant provisions of the Act is not limited to what is relevant for recovery of the amount but extends to the fixation of the very liability after considering the objections, if any, the public accountant raised to the claim. The view expressed by the 2nd respondent that the scope of investigation under the provisions of the Act is limited to the question of recovery, in my view, is totally incorrect. The view expressed by the 2nd respondent that the scope of investigation under the provisions of the Act is limited to the question of recovery, in my view, is totally incorrect. I would therefore hold that when the 2nd respondent's jurisdiction to proceed under the provisions of the Act was challenged by the petitioner in his objections, Ext. P2, it was incumbent on the 2nd respondent to satisfy the petitioner that there was an order in writing as provided under S.8 of the Act delegating the powers under the Act by the Collector in favour of the Revenue Divisional Officer generally or particularly. The Collector's order No. A. 46777 of 1977 dated 8th August 1977 referred to in Ext. P4 order of the 2nd respondent is not before the court. If, as a matter of fact, there is an order in writing by the Collector delegating his powers under S.8 of the Act to the 2nd respondent, Revenue Divisional officer, generally or particularly, then that should set at rest the dispute regarding the competency of the 2nd respondent to fix the liability, if any, of the petitioner under S.3 of the Act. 4. The petitioner had also raised the contention that he, being only a Lower Division Typist, was not a public accountant as defined in S.2(b) of the Act. Under S.2(b) of the Act public accountant means a person who, by reason of being employed in the service of the Government or of any other authority or institution notified by the Government in that behalf from time to time in the Gazette, is entrusted with the receipt, custody, possession or control of any moneys or securities for money, documents, or other property belonging to the Government, or to any such authority or institution notified as aforesaid, or who, in his capacity as Government Servant, or servant of any such authority or institution, is entrusted with the receipt, custody, possession or control of any moneys or securities for money, documents or other property belonging to any person or persons or to any institution for and on behalf of the Government or any such authority or institution, as the case may be. The Lower Division Typist, generally speaking, in the nature of the work required to be executed by him, could not be stated to be a person who is entrusted with the receipt, custody, possession or control of any moneys or securities for money, documents, or other property belonging to the Government. If on the other hand he was entrusted with the money, security, document, or property it was to be established by cogent and acceptable evidence; it is not a matter for mere surmise or for the subjective satisfaction of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent does not appear to have squarely met this contention raised in Ext. P2 objection to Ext. P1 notice. 5. Assuming, without pronouncing finally anything as to what the correct position is, that the petitioner was a public accountant as defined in S.2(b) of the Act; that a proper enquiry as contemplated in S.3 of the Act for fixing the liability was conducted by the 2nd respondent; and that the Collector had delegated his powers under the Act by an order in writing in favour of the 2nd respondent in terms of S.8 of the Act; even then the order to be put into execution or to be made use of for recovery of the amount under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act should have been confirmed by the Collector as required under S.8(2) of the Act, the order passed by the 2nd respondent in exercise of the powers delegated to him under sub-s.(1) of S.8 being one subject to the confirmation by the Collector, who has the power to confirm, modify or annul such order or to issue such further orders as he deems fit. It is not clear from the material on records as to whether Ext. P4 order had been confirmed by the Collector as required under S.8(2) of the Act. 6. For the foregoing reasons I would quash Ext. It is not clear from the material on records as to whether Ext. P4 order had been confirmed by the Collector as required under S.8(2) of the Act. 6. For the foregoing reasons I would quash Ext. P4 order and direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, The points required to be considered and decided by the 2nd respondent would be the following: (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner was during the material time a public accountant in terms of the definition in S.2(b) of the Act; (2) whether there was any material for fixing the liability, if any, on the petitioner, which fixation has to be made by the 2nd respondent himself applying his mind, despite the finding if any, in any proceedings earlier; (3) whether there was a valid delegation of the powers of the Collector under the Act in favour of the 2nd respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, by an order in writing as required under S.8(1) of the Act. Needless to say that steps for the recovery of the amount, if any, fixed under S.3 of the Act by 2nd respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, in exercise of the power delegated to him by the Collector under S.8(1) of the Act could be taken only after following the procedure laid down in S.8(2) of the Act. 7. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above direction. There will be no order as to costs. A carbon copy of this judgment may be granted to the Government Pleader free of charge and to the counsel for the petitioner on usual terms, if applied for in that behalf.