JUDGMENT Per T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. The dispute in the writ petition is regarding the non disbursement of balance amount of Rs.18,209/- towards DCRG. Petitioner is a retired Manager (Depot), Food Corporation of India, District Office, Thiruvananthapuram. He retired from service on attaining superannuation on 31.10.2007. While he was working as Manager (Depot), he was posted as Honarary Secretary in the Department Staff Canteen, Valiyathura, Thiruvananthapuram and worked as such for the period from September 2000 to June 2001 and from 24.05.2004 to 3.06.2005. 2. While the petitioner was in service, a complaint arose regarding the non-remittance of the EPF contribution in respect of some of the employees of the canteen. Various proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and the other office bearers of the canteen. Even though, initially an amount of Rs.59,162/- was withheld from the retirement benefits due to the petitioner, an amount of Rs.41,853/- was released on 22.8.2007 after clearing all other objections. The relief sought for herein relates to the balance amount of Rs.18,209/-. The petitioner is relying on Exhibit P-10 to contend for the position that as far as the dues in respect of the EPF amount also his liability has been cleared and the respondents are directed to release the balance portion of an amount of Rs.18,209/- also. 3. As directed by this Court, Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a detailed statement. It is pointed out therein that an Enforcement Officer from Regional Provident Fund Commmissioner, Pattom, had carried out an inspection with regard to the monthly pay bills of canteen employees and found that there was short remittance of Rs.12,420.55 towards EPF account of the employees working in canteen for the period from 7.04.2007 to 15.6.2007 and issued a recovery notice for the said amount. This was informed to the petitioner and other employees who were in charge of the canteen at that relevant time vide memo dated 22.2.2007. The respondents proceeded against the petitioner and found that the petitioner and one Mr.Sarasappan Nair, who were in charge of the canteen at the relevant time were responsible for the short remittance. Initially, they were directed to produce documentary proof, if any, to discharge from the liability. In the absence of any documentary proof, the petitioner and Shri.Sarasappan Nair was held responsible for Rs.5,006/- and Rs.7,415/- respectively. Annexure R2 is the recovery notice dated 16.5.2007 produced herein in support of the said plea. Initially, they were directed to produce documentary proof, if any, to discharge from the liability. In the absence of any documentary proof, the petitioner and Shri.Sarasappan Nair was held responsible for Rs.5,006/- and Rs.7,415/- respectively. Annexure R2 is the recovery notice dated 16.5.2007 produced herein in support of the said plea. 4. Shri.Sarasappan Nair, who is still in service had remitted the amount by cash and the petitioner had not responded to the notice, hence the amount of Rs.5.006/- was adjusted from his DCRG. There was a further recovery of an amount of Rs.12,303/- towards Medical Health Scheme. Therefore, the position that is emerging is that the petitioner is found liable for an amount of Rs.5,006/- which represents short remittance of the EPF contribution of the Canteen Employees. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that in the light of Ext.P10 that the imposition of liability cannot be justified. A reading of Ext.P10 shows that the recommendation is to refund the excess amount withheld from the petitioner, once the dues pertaining to his period are paid. According to the respondents, apart from the petitioner the only other person liable is Sri.Sarasappan Nair and from whom the portion of the amount found liable as due has been recovered. 6. At this stage, this Court cannot go into such disputed questions whether the petitioner or anybody is liable for the loss. Even though the petitioner has got a contention that the Chairman of the canteen could have been liable, in the absence of the said person in the array of parties, this Court will not be justified in considering this aspect. The amount of his liability is shown as Rs.5,006/-. The learned counsel submits that his client prepared to forego the claim. In the light of the position emerging as above, I do not think that this Court will be justified in interfering with the matter. Regarding the balance amount, the same is recovered towards Medical Health Scheme, the liability of which is not disputed. The writ petition is dismissed. As the petitioners' liability has already been arrived at as Rs.5,006/- no further proceedings should be taken against him in the matter.