Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1295 (AP)

K. C. Lakshman Rao v. Union of India

2022-11-16

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2022
ORDER : 1. This petition is filed questioning the orders passed by the Government in Memo No. 6645/Vig.II(1)/2007-7, dated 03.03.2011 for affecting recovery of an amount of Rs. 84,682/- and Rs. 1,75,099/- for the alleged loss caused for the Agricultural Market Committee (AMC), Chirala and Addanki for expiry of Pesticides and the consequential orders issued in Rc. No. 17/2011 dated 26.4.2011 of the concerned AMCs for payment of the said amounts without following due process of law and the consequential orders issued by the District Collectors in Roc. No. 4422/2011/D7, dated 12.10.2014 for affecting recovery under Revenue Recovery Act and the orders of the Tahsildar, dated 05.03.2016, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Mr. P.V. Ramana, learned counsel appearing for the petitions and learned Government Pleader for Services-II, Mr. B. Prakasam, learned Standing Counsel for AMC and learned Government Pleader for Agriculture appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from service as Selection Grade Secretary on 31.5.2007. Before his retirement, the petitioner worked as Secretary Grade II, AMC, Chirala from 18.12.1995 to 22.1.2000. The petitioner also continued as In-charge Secretary Grade-II of AMC, Addanki from 12.12.1997. During the said period, no Pesticides were expired and while relieving from the said places, the petitioner handed over the entire stock in good condition to the successor Officers. Thereafter, the petitioner was retired from service on 31.5.2007. But to his utter surprise, the Government has issued the impugned proceedings, dated 03.03.2011 for effecting recovery from three officers on the ground that they are responsible for expiry of fertilizers and pesticides. The 2nd respondent-Commissioner and Director of Agricultural Marketing was directed to take necessary action by invoking provisions under Revenue Recovery Act. It is further stated that on 26.4.2011 the person-in-charge, AMC, Chirala and Addanki issued orders asking the petitioner to pay the above amounts within 15 days, failing which, necessary criminal action or action under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act (for short “the Act”) will be initiated. On 06.06.2011, when the petitioner asked information in respect of fixation of responsibility of loss and the basis on which the responsibility was fixed, the AMC, Addanki informed that it is not feasible for them to furnish information. On 06.06.2011, when the petitioner asked information in respect of fixation of responsibility of loss and the basis on which the responsibility was fixed, the AMC, Addanki informed that it is not feasible for them to furnish information. Thereafter, on 14.05.2011, the petitioner submitted his reply stating that he is not responsible for the loss of expiry fertilizers and pesticides and the same were handed over to his successors in good condition. The 5th respondent, vide order, dated 12.10.2014 directed the 6th respondent for taking action to recover the amounts under the Act, based on the letter, dated 14.6.2011 and AMC, Addanki, dated 16.6.2011. Accordingly, the 6th respondent issued restraint order on 5.3.2016 to the petitioner. Questioning the above, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents 1 and 2, denying all the allegations made in the petition. It is contended that, in the said Memo, it was stated in respect of AMC, Chirala during 1998 bulk purchases of Seeds, Fertilizers & pesticides were made during the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 by the petitioner herein. The unsold and expired Pesticide of 211 Ltrs and 57 Kgs granules which are not fit for further use, which cost was calculated at Rs. 87,395/-. It is further stated that, the Government in Memo No. 6645/Vig.II(1)/2007-7, dated 03.0.2011 requested the 2nd respondent to take necessary action to initiate criminal action or action under A.P.R.R. Act 1964 for recovery of loss caused to the AMC, Chirala and Addanki. The expired stocks of Fertilizers & Pesticides for a tune of Rs. 2,62,503/- as per GAD (V&E), department. It is further stated that the impugned orders are not contrary to law and is valid. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. On hearing, this Court observed that the period of alleged irregularities relate to 1995 to 2000. The petitioner retired from service on 31.5.2007. If any action is to be initiated even for effecting recovery, the Revised Pension Rules, 1980 provides that in respect of an incident taken place 4 years prior to the date of retirement, cannot be proceeded and the same is barred by limitation. In the present case, the Government issued orders on 03.03.2011 for affecting recovery i.e. after 4 years of retirement of the petitioner. In the present case, the Government issued orders on 03.03.2011 for affecting recovery i.e. after 4 years of retirement of the petitioner. Moreover, the incident has taken place for more than 10 years back, therefore, the Government suffers from want of power and jurisdiction for issuing Memo, dated 03.03.2011 and thereby the entire order is void ab initio. 6. It is settled principle law that any order which involves civil consequences is to be passed in consonance with the principles of natural justice. 7. In the instant case, the petitioner, in spite of raising objections against the recovery, for the reasons best known, the Government without communicating any order, directed the District collector, to invoke the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, and thereby, the Tahsildar issued restraint order on 05.03.2016 and in view of the same, at any moment, the properties of the petitioner will be attached without there being any power and jurisdiction on the respondents. 8. As seen from the entire material available on record, this Court observed that, on 22.03.2016, the A.P. Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad, while issuing notice to the respondents granted interim direction, as under: “Pending disposal of the O.A. the respondents are directed not to recover the amount from the applicant in pursuance of Government Memo No. 6645/Vig.II(1)/2007-7, dated 3.3.2011 directing for affecting recovery of an amount of Rs. 84,682/- and Rs. 1,75,099/- and passing consequential orders in Lr. No. DS(1)5808/2009 dated 7.4.2011 issued by the Commissioner and Director of Agricultural Marketing to Chairman/Person-in-Charges and the orders in Rc. No. 17/2011 dated 26.4.2011 for affecting recovery and Rc. No. 43/2011 dated 26.4.2011 and the letter addressed by the person-in-charge, AMC, Chirala in Rc. No. 17/2011 dated 14.6.2011 and Chairman, AMC Addanki in Rc. No. 43/2011 dated 16.6.2011 to the District Collector and the orders of the District Collector, West Godavari in Roc. No. 4422/20111/D7, dated 12.10.2014 and the restraint order of the Tahsildar, Palakoderu Mandal in Roc. No. 197/2016 dated 5.3.2016.” 9. In a case of N.A. Radha vs. State of A.P. Revenue Department, 2000 (2) ALD 105 wherein the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that: “It is also contended that the question of limitation is more appropriately adjudicated in civil proceedings. In the limited context of the facts of the case on hand this contention of the respondent corporation does not commend itself to this court. In the limited context of the facts of the case on hand this contention of the respondent corporation does not commend itself to this court. True it is that a question of limitation is normally a mixed question of law and fact. However, all the relevant facts are already pleaded in the case and the specific plea of the petitioners contained in the letter dated 18.10.1988 and in this writ petition, the respondent corporation has categorically denied such contention and set out the relevant facts which are necessary to adjudicate and to pronounce on this aspect of the matter. The corporation has contended itself with pleading that the petitioners letter dated 18.10.1988 constitutes an acknowledgment of the debt. Orally, it was alternatively contended, that the letter dated 18.10.1988 constitutes an agreement within the meaning of Section 25(3) of the Contract act. This Court has considered both these contentions on the basis of the established facts as available on record. The respondent had ample opportunity to plead all the relevant facts in support of their contentions in view the specific pela taken by the petitioners in the writ petition. No other factor has been pleaded, canvassed to rebut the contention of the petitioners in this regard.” In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to relegate the petitioners, to pursue adjudication on this aspect of the matter, to an alternative forum, merely as a ritualistic exercise. In the premise this contention of the respondent corporation has been rejected and this court has proceed to adjudicate upon this question in these proceedings. 10. In the circumstances, the impugned proceedings issued under A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, which is not applicable to the case of the petitioner and the case of the petitioner shall fall under A.P. Revised Pensionary Rules, 1980. The respondents failed to initiate action against the petitioner instead of under A.P. Revised Pensionary Rules, initiated proceedings under A.P. Revised Recovery Act. Even if it is considered, this Court declares that the claim of the respondent corporation that the petitioners are due an amount of Rs. 2,46,218.70 ps pursuant to the term loan advanced to them in the year 1971 is barred by limitation and cannot be recovered under the provisions of A.P. Revenue Recovery Act. 11. Even if it is considered, this Court declares that the claim of the respondent corporation that the petitioners are due an amount of Rs. 2,46,218.70 ps pursuant to the term loan advanced to them in the year 1971 is barred by limitation and cannot be recovered under the provisions of A.P. Revenue Recovery Act. 11. In another case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (While Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Para-18(ii), as under: 18.(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusing the material available on record and the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court referred to above, this Court is of the considered view that, declaring the impugned orders of the Government, dated 03.03.2011 vide Memo No. 6645/Vig.II(1)/2007-7 for affecting recovery of an amount of Rs. 84,682/- and Rs. 1,75,099/- for the alleged loss caused for the AMC, Chirala and AMC, Addanki for expiry of Pesticides, and the consequential orders issued in Rc. No. 17/2011 dated 26.4.2011 of the concerned AMCs for payment of the said amounts without following due process of law, and the consequential orders issued by the District Collector in Roc. No. 4422/2011/D7 dated 12.10.2014 for affecting recovery under Revenue Recovery Act and the orders of the Tahsildar dated 5.3.2016 as illegal. 13. Therefore, while holding good the interim order granted by the Tribunal on 22.03.2016, directing the respondents not to recover any amounts from the petitioner. 14. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 15. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents argued that a huge financial loss involved and further whatever the action taken by the respondents are correct. 16. In the light of the argument of the learned Standing Counsel, no doubt, a huge financial loss is observed, but while taking timely decisions and following due process by the officers concerned, the officers slept all these years i.e. the respondents issued impugned proceedings against the petitioner on 7.4.2011, 26.4.2011, 14.6.2011, 16.6.2011 and 12.10.2014 for affecting recovery after his superannuation i.e. on 31.05.2007 and initiated action with wrong procedure without following the due process of law. So, this Court is inclined to direct the Government to take steps whatever financial loss caused to the Government to recover from the concerned officers/Head of the Departments, whoever responsible for taking steps within the specified time as mentioned in the Government Orders, Rules and as per Regulations, without following due process and failed to take steps in accordance with law. 16. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.