Judgment :- 1. This writ petition comes before us on reference by a learned judge, according to whom, an important question of law of general interest is involved in it. The question is, whether the Kerala Public Accountants' Act, 1963 is applicable to retired Government servants for the purpose of recovering from them losses alleged to have been caused by them while in service. 2. The petitioner first joined service in the Revenue Department as Village Assistant on 1-4-1119 and retired from service as Village Officer on 30-9-1977. During the years 1966 to 1968 he was Village Officer in Kumbalam village in Kanayannur Taluk. There be was entrusted with the work of procurement of paddy by levy from the cultivators in Kumbalam village. On 18-1-1978 the petitioner was served with a notice of demand by the 2nd respondent (Ext. P-1), under S.3 (2) of the Kerala Public Accountants' Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as the Act, making a demand for Rs. 2018.63 towards value of paddy alleged to have been short-distributed by him during the years 1966 to 1968. He submitted Ext. P2 explanation, which was followed by Ext. P3 proceedings and consequential orders of the Board of Revenue. Exts. P4 and P4 (a). The prayer in the petition is to quash Exts. P1, P3, P4 and P4(a). 3. The challenge against Ext. P1 is on the basis that no action can be taken against the petitioner after bis retirement under any of the provisions contained in the Act. It is submitted before us that Ext. P1 itself is defective because it is issued as though he is in service. The second attack against Ext. P1 is that it is issued against the petitioner after his retirement and that S.3 (2) under which the notice was issued does not clothe the authorities with sufficient powers to proceed against a person like the petitioner after his retirement from service. It is this point that is referred by the learned judge for decision by a Division Bench. 4. We do not find any difficulty in answering this question against the petitioner. It is this point that is referred by the learned judge for decision by a Division Bench. 4. We do not find any difficulty in answering this question against the petitioner. The preamble to the Act reads as follows: "Whereas it is expedient to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the prevention of loss to the Government by the default or misconduct of public accountants in the State of Kerala." "Public accountant" is defined in S.2 (b) as under: "'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 this 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." S. 6 of the Act enables proceedings to be taken against a public accountant's legal representatives or to continue the proceedings already taken against a public accountant after his death against his legal representatives. S.6 reads as follows: - "8. Continuance of proceedings. -- On the death of a person who is, or has been, a public accountant, proceedings may be taken or continued under this Act against his legal representatives as if such legal representative were the public accountant." The Act therefore provides a remedy for recovery of the loss sustained by the Government due to the default of a Public Accountant as defined under the Act. The past conduct of a Government servant is the cause for a future action under the Act. The Act does not insist that the jural relationship of master and servant should subsist even when steps are initiated under the Act. In fact the object and scheme of the Act visualise action being taken even after the retirement of the Government servant and even against the legal representatives. 5. The Act does not insist that the jural relationship of master and servant should subsist even when steps are initiated under the Act. In fact the object and scheme of the Act visualise action being taken even after the retirement of the Government servant and even against the legal representatives. 5. It is true that decisions have held that no disciplinary proceeding can be initiated against a Government servant if he is retired, the reason being that the relationship of master and servant is snapped on retirement and disciplinary, control of the Government can no longer continue. The limited proceedings that can be continued against a Government servant even after retirement is contained in R.3, Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. The Government servant has thus no absolute immunity after retirement even under the Kerala Service Rules. The Public Accountant's Act is however a special Act defining "Public Accountant" as embracing Government servants and persons employed by any authority or institution notified by Government and entrusted with money, securities, documents etc. It is the betrayal of the "trust" and the consequential loss that give rights for initiation of the summary provisions under the Act. The cause, having commenced, continues till the loss is extinguished. The trust cannot be misused and the advantage retained under the plea that one is no longer a Government servant. The quondam Government servant is answerable to the claim under the Public Accountants' Act. There is thus sufficient jurisdiction to take proceedings under the Act against the petitioner. 6. The petitioner also complains that the orders have been passed violating the principles of natural justice. Actually be was not given copy of the report of the Taluk Supply Officer which formed the basis of the order. We feel that this contention is well founded. While therefore holding that the respondent has jurisdiction to initiate action under the Kerala Public Accountants' Act, we quash Exts. P3, P5 and P4 (a) on the short ground that they have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, with liberty reserved to pass fresh orders after giving to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and after giving him a copy of the report of the Taluk Supply Officer relied on. The O.P. is disposed of as above. No costs.