Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 676 (KER)

Velayudhan Pillai v. D F O

2000-12-18

M.RAMACHANDRAN

body2000
JUDGMENT M. Ramachandran, J. 1. The petitioner was an officer working in the Forest Department and had retired from service on superannuation on 31.08.1985. His retirement benefits were sanctioned without much delay and the Non Liability Certificate was issued to him in March, 1986. The complaint is that after four years of his retirement a memo was issued to him, evidenced by Ext. P1, alleging that he is answerable for a claim of Rs.4,393.18. It had been issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Timber Sales Division, Thiruvananthapuram and alleged that while he had executed the work of the supply of timber to Government of India Consignees during 1982, vouchers presented by him for an amount of Rs.4393.18 were disallowed on scrutiny, they being in excess of admissible limit. The petitioner had objected to the above on various grounds, especially since they were actuals. 2. Forthwith revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the Original Petition was filed and he had obtained an interim order of stay. 3. On the strength of Note 3 to R.3 Part III of the Kerala Service Rules, the petitioner submitted that as the proposal was to recover dues alleged to be due to the Department, after three years of his retirement it was impermissible and therefore unsustainable. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is submitted that it is not in exercise of the powers under the said rules the proceedings had been initiated but on the authority of the Kerala Public Accountants Act. It had been conceded that it was not possible to proceed under the Kerala Service Rules. However, even though such a stand is adopted, it is not seen from the proceedings that the respondent had in mind the provisions of the Public Accountants Act for proceeding against the petitioner. The claim is put up, since the counter affidavit refers to the circumstance that a letter was addressed to the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram as he is the notified authority and the demand notice was sent by the District Collector as provided under the said Act. 5. But Sri.Sugathan appearing for the petitioner points out that the procedure prescribed is not as simple as is attempted to be projected. The Government was only taking advantage of the position that the recovery steps had to be resorted to through the Department of Revenue. 6. So long as Ext. 5. But Sri.Sugathan appearing for the petitioner points out that the procedure prescribed is not as simple as is attempted to be projected. The Government was only taking advantage of the position that the recovery steps had to be resorted to through the Department of Revenue. 6. So long as Ext. P1 has been issued and enforcement is founded thereon, to my mind they cannot be deemed as proceedings under the Public Accountants Act. S.3 of the said Act provides a procedure that whenever it appears to the Collector or the Head of a Department that there is claim against a Public Accountant for moneys, he shall draw up a statement and serve the same on the Public Accountant and if the Public Accountant does not satisfy the demand but objects to the claim, wholly or in part, the Collector is to enquire into the objection and record a decision. In spite of such a decision if the Public Accountant does not satisfy the claim, the Collector has to take proceedings to realise the money as per law. It is not seen that these formalities have been complied with or even borne in mind. 7. Padmanabha Iyer v. State of Kerala ( 1974 KLT 556 ) which was a decision referred to by the petitioner lays down that powers under the said Act have to be exercised with considerable care and deliberation. Revenue recovery proceedings are to be issued after due deliberations which are to be mandatorily followed. In the aforesaid circumstances, I hold that Ext. P1 is not enforceable as such, and therefore Ext. P4 also cannot be sustained. They are quashed. The learned Government Pleader submitted that in view of dues that are payable to the Government, they may be permitted to take further proceedings in the matter by curing the technical defects. However the petitioner points out that what is sought to be imposed is an imaginary liability without any legal or factual basis and totally unsustainable. There was no allegation of any reprehensible conduct on the part of the government servant. The petitioner has retired from service in 1985 and proceedings for a paltry sum at this juncture may not be justifiable. I hold that further proceedings against the petitioner in this regard may not be initiated, as it will do not constitute to public interest nor fairness. 8. The Original Petition is therefore allowed.