IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30546 of 2004(J)
1. M.MATHUKUTTY, RETD. ASSISTANT
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CHAIRMAN,
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
3. CHIEF INTERNAL AUDITOR, K.S.E.B.,
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SMT.VANAJA MADHAVAN
For Respondent :SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :30/09/2010
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No. 30546 of 2004
==================
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner retired from the service of the Kerala State
Electricity Board on 31.7.2002. Since there was delay in payment of
his pensionary benefits, the petitioner approached this Court. By
Ext.P1 judgment in W.P.(C).No.3460 of 2004, this Court held thus:
“Petitioner is a retired employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board
and had filed this writ petition complaining that there is considerable delay in
settlement of D.C.R.G. Amounts that are due to him.
2. However, in the counter affidavit filed, it is pointed out that
there were vigilance proceedings against the petitioner and as a matter of
fact, the Board has sustained a loss of Rs.28,424.57 because of him.
3. Though the petitioner submits that notice about this much
liability had not been given to him, nevertheless the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that for the time being, at least the amount that is payable
deducting that much amount in any case, is to be paid.
4. Sri.N.D.Premachandran, standing counsel for the Board submits
that deducting that much amount of Rs.28,424.57, the balance D.C.R.G. will
be paid to the petitioner within a maximum period of one month from today.
The payment should be arranged expeditiously. In the matter of liabilities that
has been presently pointed out in the counter affidavit, since the petitioner
does not admit the above, it should be ensured that there is a proper
adjudication with notice to him.
5. Therefore this writ petition is closed simultaneously giving an
opportunity to the petitioner to submit a representation to the concerned
respondent for appraising him of the details of the claim and his right to make
objections thereof. If it is ultimately found that no liabilities are payable from
the hands of the petitioner, follow up exercises are to be completed within a
period of six months.”
2. The petitioner was also given Ext.P2 certificate showing
that there are no liabilities to the Board or Government outstanding
against the petitioner, who has retired on 31.7.2002. But strangely, by
w.p.c.30546/04 2
Ext.P8, a liability of Rs.27,862.82 was fastened on the petitioner,
which was withheld from his DCRG. The same has been confirmed by
Ext.P9 order of the Chairman of the KSEB. It is under the above
circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the
following reliefs;
“a) a writ of certiorari, order or direction, directing respondents 1 & 2
to call for the records leading to Exhibits P8 and P9 and quash the
same, and release entire D.C.R.G. To the petitioner.
b) a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order to call for the
records relating to Exhibits P8 and P9 and quash the same;
c) a writ of prohibition directing the respondents 1 and 2 not to
deduct any amount as liability from the petitioner.
d) to declare that petitioner is not liable to pay any amount.”
3. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The
learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB would support the impugned
orders on the ground that it was pursuant to a vigilance enquiry that
the liability has been fastened on the petitioner and, before fixing that
liability, the petitioner was given a notice and he had submitted his
explanation.
4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
5. As is evident form Ext.P2 non-liability certificate, there was
no liability on the petitioner as contemplated under Rule 3 of Part III of
the Kerala Service Rules as on the date of his retirement. Ext.P8 order
reads thus;
“A vigilance enquiry conducted based on a source information
containing allegation against the staff of Electrical Circle, Palakkad ofw.p.c.30546/04 3
their involvement with scrap contractors and rampant corruptions in
the disposal of scrap materials disclosed that there was irregularity in
the disposal of scrap items during early 2002. The Board has sustained
a total loss of Rs.28424.57 due to the irregular scrap disposal of
Electrical Sections, Chalissery, Thrithala and Koppam .
Sri.M.Mathukutty, Assistant Engineer (Rtd.) while holding the
post of Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Chalissery have
fraudulently prepared the survey report and disposed scrap items
which were not survey reported, with the connivance of certain other
members of staff. The survey report of scrap at Electrical Major
Section, Thrithala, were also prepared by Sri.Mathukutty Assistant
Engineer. During the time of disposal of scrap materials at Electrical
Major Section, Thrithala, though Mathukutty was then Assistant
Engineer at Electrical Section, Chalisserry he unauthorisedly come to
Electrical Major Section, Thrithala and managed disposal of scrap
items. The total loss of revenue due to this irregular disposal of scrap
materials at Electrical Section, Chalissery and Electrical Section,
Thrithala comes to Rs. 27,862/82.
A notice was issued to Sri.Mathukutty, Assistant Engineer (Rtd.)
vide paper read as 3rd above to show cause as to why an amount of
Rs. 27,862/82 being the loss sustained to the Board on account of
scrap disposal at Electrical Section, Chalissery and Thrithala should not
be recovered from his pensionary claims invoking Rule III, Part III,
K.S.R.
Sri.Mathukutty, Assistant Engineer (Rtd.) has submitted his
explanation vide paper read as 4th above. The undersigned has
examined the explanation with connected documents and found the
same not satisfactory. Hence the undersigned hereby confirms the
punishment of recovery of Rs. 27,862/- being the loss sustained to the
Board from the pensionary benefits of Sri.M.Mathukutty, Assistant
Engineer (Rtd.) invoking Rule III, Part III, K.S.R.”
From a reading of the same, it is abundantly clear that the liability
sought to be fastened on the petitioner arises on the basis of an
alleged misconduct stated to have been committed by the petitioner.
The same is not an mere liability, but alleged loss caused to the Board,
on account of an alleged misconduct stated to have been misconduct,
the responsibility for which is yet to be fastened on the petitioner by a
process of conducting enquiry and adducing evidence. Such a
w.p.c.30546/04 4
responsibility could not have been fixed simply by issuing a show
cause notice and obtaining an explanation. In respect of the same, if at
all, liability could have been fastened on the petitioner only after
conducting a disciplinary enquiry and finding the petitioner guilty of the
misconduct, which allegedly caused a loss of Rs.27,862/- in question.
It could not have been fastened simply by issuing a notice to him and
obtaining his explanation. Evidently such an exercise has not been
undertaken by the respondents. Without the same, the petitioner could
not have been fastened with a liability as contained in Exts.P8 and P9.
6. Further, the petitioner retired on 31.7.2002 and Ext.P2
non-liability certificate was also issued to him on 5.11.2002. The so-
called liability was fixed only on 31.8.2004, which is not in accordance
with Note 3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. In this connection,
it is pertinent to note that it is long after issuing Ext.P2 non-liability
certificate and suffering Ext.P1 judgment that the respondents have
come up with this notice of liability. Therefore, the allegation of the
petitioner that the same was an act of vengeance for having filed the
writ petition cannot be brushed aside lightly. The above view is
supported by a Division Bench decision of this Cort in Sugathan v.
Cochin Devaswom Board [2005 (1) KLT 46], paragraph 7 of which,
reads thus:
“7. We may point out so far as this case is concerned, the
liability is yet to be fixed. Therefore Note 2 to R.3 would not apply. Sow.p.c.30546/04 5
also R.3(b). The provision that applies to this case is R.116(5), which
says that where liabilities could not be assessed and fixed before
retirement, efforts should be made to assess and adjust the
recoverable dues within a period of one year from the date of
retirement. On failure, the amount withheld from the death-cum-
retirement gratuity will be released. Liability can also be fixed against
pensioner and such liability can be recovered from the death-cum-
retirement gratuity payable to him without departmental/judicial
proceeding but only after giving the employee (pensioner) concerned a
reasonable opportunity to explain. Therefore, for withholding or
withdrawing death-cum-retirement gratuity no departmental
proceeding as contemplated under R.3(b) is necessary. Liability can
also be fixed against the petitioner and amount can be recovered from
the death-cum retirement gratuity only subject to the condition that
the person concerned should be given a reasonable opportunity to
explain. The liability against the pensioner can also be quantified after
retirement, but not beyond three years after becoming a pensioner. If
the liability could not be assessed and fixed before retirement, it
should be assessed and adjusted from the recoverable dues within a
period of one year from the date of retirement. If the liability could
not assessed and adjusted within one year, the death-cum-retirement
gratuity has to be released. We may point out, so far as this case is
concerned the employee retired from service on 31.1.2003. The
liability could not be assessed and adjusted from the death-cum-
retirement gratuity within one year from the date of retirement. Hence
the petitioner is entitled to get the entire amount of death-cum-
retirement gratuity. The provision also enables the Government to take
disciplinary action against the employee who is responsible for the
failure to assess and adjust the liability within the prescribed period of
one year. On failure to comply with the provision of sub-r.(5) of R.116,
statute enables the authority to take action against the pensioner
under R.3 of Part III to make up the loss by withdrawing, upholding or
effecting recoveries from the pension sanctioned. If action under R.3 is
not possible within the limit prescribed in R.3 Part III or due to any
other reason, the retired employee can be proceeded against in a Civil
Court for the recovery of pecuniary loss caused to Government and in
this case the Devaswom Board. Cochin Devaswom Board could not
assess and adjust the liability towards the recoverable dues within one
year from the date of retirement of the petitioner. Hence the Board is
bound to release the balance amount. The balance amount due would
be paid to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Board is however free to assess
the liability and recover the same in accordance with law.”
7. Therefore, I am of opinion that the respondents could not
have recovered the said amount from the petitioner’s DCRG without
finding the petitioner guilty of the misconduct, which allegedly caused
loss to the Board and without filing a civil suit. Therefore, Exts.P8 and
w.p.c.30546/04 6
P9 orders are quashed. The respondents are directed to pay to the
petitioner the withheld amount of Rs.27,862.82 with 6% interest from
the date of his retirement, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge