IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 1634 of 2007()
1. G. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT.DEPARTMENT
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL N.C.C.,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SUKUMARA MENON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :07/11/2007
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN,J.
----------------------------------------------------
W.A. NO. 1634 OF 2007
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th November, 2007
JUDGMENT
H.L.DATTU, C.J.
Challenging the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the
learned single Judge in W.P.(C)No.12457 of 2004, dated 27th March, 2007, the
petitioner in the Writ Petition is before us in this appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, we will be referring to the appellant as the
petitioner.
3. Petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on
31.10.1997. While he was in service, he was kept under suspension pending
enquiry by the Vigilance Officer. After completion of the enquiry proceedings by
the Vigilance Officer, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 5.12.1996.
4. After he retired from service, the respondents have deducted a sum of
Rs.21,760/- from the DCRG amount payable to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the
orders so made for recovery of the aforesaid amount from DCRG, the petitioner
was before this Court by filing O.P.No.32328 of 2000. The learned single Judge
by the judgment, dated 29th August, 2003, had set aside the orders passed by the
State Government (Exts.P9 and P10 in O.P.No.32328 of 2000 and Exts.P2 and
P3 in the present Writ Petition, W.P.(C) No.12457 of 2004). The learned Judge
had further directed the State Government to pass a fresh order in accordance
with law after notice to the petitioner. After disposal of the Original Petition, the
State Government has passed yet another order, dated 7th February, 2004. In
that, they have given a categoric finding that it is because of the commission and
omission committed by the petitioner while in service, State Government had
W.A. NO.1634 OF 2007
:: 2 ::
sustained a pecuniary loss and the same requires to be recovered from the
DCRG amount payable to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order passed by
the State Government, dated 7th February, 2004, the petitioner was once again
before this Court in W.P.(C) No.12457 of 2004. The learned single Judge by the
judgment, dated 27th March, 2007, has rejected the Writ Petition.
5. Before the writ court, petitioner had taken up two contentions. Firstly,
that in view of the findings of the Vigilance Officer the Government was not
justified in ordering recovery of certain amounts from the petitioner. Secondly, the
recovery proceedings could not have been initiated after a lapse of more than
three years from the date of retirement of the petitioner. Therefore, the orders
passed by the State Government are not only illegal, but also invalid.
6. The learned single Judge has answered both the aforesaid
contentions. In so far as the first contention is concerned, the learned single
Judge in its detailed and well considered order has stated that in Ext.P1 report of
the Vigilance Officer, there is a specific finding that it is because of the certain
acts of commission and omission committed by the petitioner, the State
Government has sustained a pecuniary loss and the petitioner cannot be
prosecuted only for the reason that the original treasury bill is not traceable.
7. The Vigilance Officer has not given a clean chit to the petitioner in his
report and in fact has concluded that the petitioner has misappropriated the
funds of the State Government. In the report, it is further stated that prosecution
proceedings cannot be initiated against the petitioner only for the reason that the
original treasury bill is not available in the records.
8. In so far as the second contention canvassed by the petitioner, the
W.A. NO.1634 OF 2007
:: 3 ::
learned single Judge by relying on Note 3 Rule 3 to Part III of the Kerala Service
Rules has observed that the said provision enables the State Government to
quantify the liabilities of an employee either before or after retirement. In the
present case, proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner earlier to his
retirement from service on attaining the age of superannuation and the same is
continued after his retirement from service also. Therefore, in our opinion, in view
of Note 3 Rule 3 to Part III of the Kerala Service Rules, the respondents were
justified in initiating proceedings for recovery of the pecuniary loss sustained by
the State Government because of the acts of the petitioner.
8. Learned single Judge, in our opinion, after answering both the
contentions canvassed by the petitioner, has rightly come to the conclusion that
the petitioner is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.
9. Having gone through Ext.P6 order passed by the State Government
and the orders passed by this Court, we are of the opinion that the learned single
Judge has not committed any error in the impugned judgment, which would call
for interference by this Court. Therefore, the Writ Appeal requires to be rejected
and it is rejected.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
Chief Justice
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/