High Court Kerala High Court

Sri.C.M.Sethumadhavan vs Deputy Tahsildar (Rr) on 27 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
Sri.C.M.Sethumadhavan vs Deputy Tahsildar (Rr) on 27 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 33349 of 2004(T)


1. SRI.C.M.SETHUMADHAVAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), MANNARKKAD,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :27/06/2008

 O R D E R
                       C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                  ....................................................................
                            W.P.(C) No.33349 of 2004
                  ....................................................................
                    Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008.

                                         JUDGMENT

The petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of

loss caused by him while he was in the service of the Central Government

as a Branch Post Master. Admittedly disciplinary action was taken against

the petitioner for misappropriation which led to his dismissal from service.

The question is whether the misappropriated amount could be recovered

from the petitioner. Details are furnished in the counter affidavit which

shows that an amount of Rs.20,000/- with interest of Rs.3,813/- is

recoverable from the petitioner. This amount represents unauthorised

withdrawal by the petitioner from the account of various persons maintained

in the Post Office. Along with disciplinary action, loss caused to the

Government also can be recovered from State Government employees under

the Kerala Public Accountants Act, 1963 and from the Central Government

employees under the Public Accountants Act, 1850. The petitioner has not

filed any reply to counter affidavit denying the liability. In the

circumstances, W.P. is devoid of any merit and is dismissed directing the

respondents to proceed for recovery.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge
pms