JUDGMENT : The petitioner, who retired from service on 31.5.2006 while working as Senior Superintendent in the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB for short), is challenging Ext.P6 order, by which the Chief Engineer ordered that a sum of Rs.1,12,614/- (Rupees One lakh twelve thousand six hundred and fourteen only) would be fixed as his liability towards the loss sustained by the Board and the same would be recovered through revenue recovery action as per the Kerala Public Accountants Act, 1963 by filing a civil suit. 2. The facts leading to the impugned order are the following: The petitioner had been working in the provident fund section in the office of the Chief Internal Auditor of the Board since 16.7.1997. He was posted in the PF Closure section-VI for the period from 12.12.2002 to 22.12.2004. By Ext.P7 proceedings dated 22.12.2004, he was relieved from PF section on promotion as Senior Superintendent. He was thereupon posted in the office of the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Alapuzha. One Sri. P.R. Venkateswara Prabhu submitted application for voluntary retirement on 15.4.2002. But the provident fund amount due to him was paid only on 19.12.2006. Therefore KSEB had to pay interest on account of the delay. Alleging that the KSEB suffered loss, on account of the payment of interest, a notice was issued to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 dated 2.1.2010 directing him to report for a personal hearing before the Accounts Officer (Enquiry Officer). It was stated in that letter that a preliminary enquiry was conducted on the basis of a complaint from the said Sri.P.R.Venkateswara Prabhu, Assistant Executive Engineer who complained delay in settling his dues towards the GPF. In that preliminary enquiry, it was found that there was negligence on the part of the officers and staff of GPF section in settling of GPF Closure and on account of the delay caused by them, a sum of Rs.1,48,651/- (Rupees One lakh fourty eight thousand six hundred and fifty one only) had to be paid towards interest. 3. Based on Ext.P1 letter, the petitioner reported before the Accounts Officer on 12.1.2010. He explained before the Accounts Officer that the application of Sri.P.R. Venkateswara Prabhu was never dealt with by him as the same was not forwarded to his seat. It is the case of the petitioner that the inquiry officer furnished a report in his favour. 3. Based on Ext.P1 letter, the petitioner reported before the Accounts Officer on 12.1.2010. He explained before the Accounts Officer that the application of Sri.P.R. Venkateswara Prabhu was never dealt with by him as the same was not forwarded to his seat. It is the case of the petitioner that the inquiry officer furnished a report in his favour. Thereafter, he received Ext.P2 notice dated 31.8.2010 from the Chief Engineer in which it was stated that on detailed enquiry it was revealed that petitioner was responsible for the delay in disbursing the GPF. Therefore, it was proposed to recover half of the interest amount of Rs.1,48,651/- (Rupees One lakh fourty eight thousand six hundred and fifty one only) from him. The petitioner was asked to submit explanation, if any against the said proposal. In answer to this the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation stating that there was no occasion for him to deal with the application of Sri.P.R.Venkateswara Prabhu which can be revealed from the records. He asserted that the relevant file was never handed over to him during his tenure in that particular section during 2002-2004 and he cannot be made responsible for the loss caused. Thereafter he received another notice Ext.P4 dated 17.12.2010 from the Chief Engineer saying that the petitioner was the person who spent maximum period in closure section and therefore it was proposed to recover a sum of Rs.1,12,614/-(Rupees One lakh twelve thousand six hundred and fourteen only), the proportionate amount of interest from him as against the earlier proposal to recover half of the total loss of Rs.1,48,651/-(Rupees One lakh fourty eight thousand six hundred and fifty one only). In answer to this show cause notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation again pointing out that the file was not handed over to him during his tenure from 12.12.2002 to 22.12.2004. He stated that the enquiry officer had already found that he was not the person responsible for the delay. He also pointed out the injustice in taking action against him alone, when the PF amount was disbursed only in 2006, and when the petitioner had worked in the section only up to 2004. The petitioner also pointed out that there was no reason for recovery of the said amount without conducting any enquiry regarding his involvement, in the absence of any evidence for the same. The petitioner also pointed out that there was no reason for recovery of the said amount without conducting any enquiry regarding his involvement, in the absence of any evidence for the same. But the Chief Engineer issued Ext.P6 order fastening his liability at Rs.1,12,641/- (Rupees One lakh twelve thousand six hundred and fourteen only) and directing recovery of the same by proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act as per the Kerala Public Accountants Act or by filing civil suits. 4. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court asserting that the order has been passed without conducting any enquiry and in the absence of any evidence as to his involvement. He stated that Public Accountants Act, 1963 cannot be invoked in his case and no proceedings can be initiated against him after four years of retirement without conducting any enquiry in accordance with law and in the absence of a finding that he is the person who caused loss to the KSEB. Referring to the provisions contained in Part III of KSR, the petitioner points out that no action can be initiated against him in respect of an incident which occurred in the year 2006. If at all any action has to be taken that could have been taken only after conducting a detailed enquiry and after finding his responsibility on the basis of evidence adduced. 5. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated as follows: Sri. P.R.Venkateswara Prabhu submitted his PF closure application on 30.4.2002 against which payment was effected on 19.12.2006 and a sum of Rs.1,48,651/- (Rupees One lakh fourty eight thousand six hundred and fifty one only) had to be paid towards interest. The Board had ordered to enquire into the loss caused to the Board as per its order dated 25.10.2008 against nine officers. After conducting a departmental enquiry as against two of them, who alone were in service, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 28.6.2010, according to which Smt. Shobhana, retired Senior Superintendent and the petitioner were solely responsible for the delay in processing the PF closure application. It was based on that report, show cause notice was issued and on the basis of the long service of the petitioner in the concerned section, it was decided to recover a sum of Rs.1,12,614/- (Rupees One lakh twelve thousand six hundred and fourteen only) from the petitioner. It was based on that report, show cause notice was issued and on the basis of the long service of the petitioner in the concerned section, it was decided to recover a sum of Rs.1,12,614/- (Rupees One lakh twelve thousand six hundred and fourteen only) from the petitioner. The KSEB has every right to recover the liability found against the petitioner as per rule 59 (a) and (b) of Part III KSR. 6. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit pointing out that the enquiry report is not produced or furnished to the petitioner and no action can be taken on the basis of the enquiry conducted behind his back. The petitioner asserts that the application was never forwarded. It is also pointed out that the disbursement of PF amount was made after two years of his relief from the section and even then the liability was fastened only on Smt. Shobhana who retired on 31.3.2010 and the petitioner who was relieved from the section on 22.12.2004. 7. I heard Sri.Mohamed Shiraz, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.S. Anil, the learned Standing Counsel for KSEB and considered their contentions. 8. The petitioner retired from service on 31.5.2006. The first notice he received regarding the loss sustained by the KSEB was Ext.P1 dated 2.1.2010. It was by Ext.P2 show cause notice dated 31.8.2010 that the proposal to fix the liability on petitioner was intimated to petitioner, which culminated in Ext.P6 final order dated 22.2.2011, after a period of more than 4= years of his retirement. The respondents have not stated their authority to proceed against the petitioner in this manner once the employer-employee relationship is severed. There is no provision of law which provides for recovery of any amount from a retired employee after 4= years of his retirement, by issuing a show cause notice to him and calling for an explanation after more than 3 years of his retirement. As long as there is no finding as to any loss caused to the KSEB by the petitioner in an inquiry conducted as per rules while he was in service or by way of proceedings continued after retirement as in the case of proceedings for dismissal, the respondents do not have any authority to recover any loss from the petitioner. 9. 9. Just because the petitioner was employed under the respondents they cannot take action against him, at any time at their will. Employer-employee relationship is governed by service rules. In order to initiate any proceedings against the petitioner in respect of any incident which occurred while he was in service, or relating to his conduct, the respondents have to observe the rules. Recovery can be ordered only if he was proceeded against under the Kerala Civil Service Classification Control Rules-which is adopted by KSEB, while he was in service and there was a finding against him in a duly conducted inquiry. Otherwise such proceedings ought to have continued after retirement as in the case of inquiry for dismissal. Or else there should have been proceedings initiated after his retirement, under rule 3 of Part III KSR, in which case also inquiry had to be conducted as in a case awarding dismissal, that too could have been only in respect of an incident which occurred within a period of 4 years. No such inquiry was conducted against him either when he was in service or after his retirement. Rule 58 or 59 relied on by the respondents in the counter affidavit do not provide for ordering recovery from a retired hand. In the absence of any rule which authorises the respondent to initiate any proceedings against a retired employee, the conclusion arrived at by the respondent that the petitioner caused loss to the KSEB and the decision to recover the proportionate loss from him are beyond the powers of the respondents. The proceedings culminated in Ext.P6 are without any authority. 10. The respondents have found that petitioner has caused the loss merely on the ground that he worked in the PF section, when petitioner in his reply asserted that such a file was never reached his seat and that the correctness of his contention can be revealed from the files. It is as against those contentions that the respondents chose to find him responsible for the loss and to fasten liability on him. I find it highly unfair and arbitrary on the part of the respondents to shut the doors of minimum principles of natural justice before a pensioner who retired years back. It is as against those contentions that the respondents chose to find him responsible for the loss and to fasten liability on him. I find it highly unfair and arbitrary on the part of the respondents to shut the doors of minimum principles of natural justice before a pensioner who retired years back. When the petitioner asserts that the relevant file was not dealt with by him and he was not the person responsible and his involvement if at all can be only during the period from 2002-04 and when the records will reveal whether the petitioner is responsible for dealing with that particular file or delay in that particular file, a finding could have been arrived at only after adducing evidence in a properly constituted proceedings, permissible under law, giving sufficient opportunity to defend his case. 11. In Ext.P6 the Chief Engineer has directed recovery of the amount by revenue recovery as per Public Accountants Act. The counter affidavit does not answer the contention of the petitioner that Public Accountants Act cannot be invoked in the case of employees of KSEB. As per the provisions contained in Public Accountants Act i.e as per section 2B, a person employed in the service of Government or any other authority or institution notified by Government alone can come under the definition of Public Accountants and the Public Accountants Act can be applied only against such public accountants. Therefore the direction proposing recovery under the Kerala Public Accountants Act is unsustainable. 12. The another option stated in Ext.P6 for recovery, is by way of a civil suit. In order to recover the loss by filing civil suit, first of all there should be a finding that the loss was caused by the inaction of the petitioner. In order to arrive at such a finding there should have been a full fledged trial or enquiry with opportunity to defend by adducing evidence and the finding should have been arrived at by adopting a procedure which is known to law, in a duly constituted inquiry on the basis of evidence adduced. Even when Ext.P6 order refers to an enquiry report, the same is not furnished to the petitioner or not produced before this Court and the respondents do not deny the fact that no enquiry was conducted with notice to the petitioner in which he was found responsible for the delay. Even when Ext.P6 order refers to an enquiry report, the same is not furnished to the petitioner or not produced before this Court and the respondents do not deny the fact that no enquiry was conducted with notice to the petitioner in which he was found responsible for the delay. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner was the person responsible for the delay or for the loss caused to the KSEB. The entire proceedings leading to Ext.P6 are therefore unsustainable. 13. In these circumstances, I quash Ext.P6. However, this will not prevent KSEB from filing civil suit, if it is permitted in accordance with law in order to realise the loss caused by them. The writ petition is disposed of as above.