IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 825 of 2003()
1. Y.THOMAS, RETIRED ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. CHIEF ENGINEER,
3. CHIEF ENGINEER, PROJECT-II,
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CHIMONY DAM PROJECT
5. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
6. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.KRB.KAIMAL
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :13/09/2007
O R D E R
K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & A.K.BASHEER, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.A.No.825 OF 2003
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2007
JUDGMENT
Radhakrishnan, J
This writ appeal is preferred by the appellant herein
seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P41, P42, P46 and P48
(a) and to declare that no liability is outstanding against the
petitioner to Government. Appellant/petitioner who was
working as an Assistant Engineer, Store Section of Chimony
Dam Project in the Irrigation Department of the State retired
from service on superannuation from 29.2.92. From 1.10.91
onwards up to the date of retirement he had been on commuted
leave of two successive spells. On his entering leave, the
appellant had requested the Assistant Executive Engineer to
make arrangements for taking over charge of the materials in
the Godown and premises of the stores. But there was no
response from the department. By Ext.P3 letter dated 22.10.91,
the Assistant Executive Engineer had directed the appellant to
hand over charge of materials to Assistant Engineer. According
W.A.No.825 OF 2003
:: 2 ::
to the appellant/petitioner, though he had gone over several
times to hand over charge, the concerned Assistant Engineer did
not take charge of stores. Appellant/petitioner brought the
position to the notice of higher authorities by representations.
As the charge of the stores could not in fact be handed over, the
pensionary benefits such as regular pension, commuted pension
and DCRG were not paid to the appellant/petitioner. Non
Liability Certificate and Last Pay Certificate were also not
issued to the appellant/petitioner. Hence the
Appellant/petitioner filed O.P.No.10323/92 before this Hon’ble
court for a direction to disburse terminal benefits and to issue
NLC/LC and LPC. That original petition was disposed of by
directing the respondents to finalise the liability of the
appellant/petitioner and pass final orders within the prescribed
time limit. Pursuant to that judgment, the liability was fixed at
Rs.2,87,268/-. According to the petitioner fixation was done
arbitrarily and without hearing him.
2. Learned Single Judge passed an interim order dated
25.6.98 directing the department to furnish the details of the
W.A.No.825 OF 2003
:: 3 ::
quantification of liability to the appellant/petitioner. In
compliance with the said order, Ext.P44 statement of details was
furnished by the department. Appellant/petitioner filed Ext.P45
objection against Ext.P44, detailed statement of quantification of
liability. Objection was considered and Ext.P46 was revised
and refixed at Rs.1,62,438.24/- after deducting the cost of Tyres
stolen from the store.
3. The Executive Engineer by his letter dated 9.11.92, had
informed the appellant/petitioner to intimate the department a
convenient date for physical verification to hand over the charge
of the store materials under his custody or sent his authorised
agent for physical verification to hand over charge, failing
which, it was ordered that the Executive Engineer would break
open the store and assume charge of the materials in order to
safeguard the interest of the department. It was stated that
petitioner’s reply dated 27.10.92 was unsatisfactory and that
petitioner was least interested in handing over the charge of the
store materials even though he had retired from service on
29.2.92. By Ext.P31, the petitioner was informed that he would
W.A.No.825 OF 2003
:: 4 ::
be personally responsible for the shortage of materials, if any,
found during the verification. The petitioner had taken a stand
that after his retirement attempts were made to remove the
stocks without his knowledge and there was incidents of theft
and his health reasons did not permit him to be present when
requests were made. Due to non co-operation of the petitioner
the department had to break up the godown on 29.11.92 and
had to prepare an inventory in petitioner’s absence.
4. As per Rule 3 Part III K.S.R., the liability of a pensioner
shall be fixed at the most within three years of retirement.
Even though the Department had repeatedly requested the
petitioner to attend for verification of the store items, petitioner
avoided the same. This shows the negligent attitude of the
petitioner. Learned Single Judge took the view that as store
keeper the petitioner should have co-operated with the
department frankly and purposively and the attempt to shirk
responsibility would be a conduct which cannot be supported.
When the inventory shows that there is shortage of item, the
custodian has necessarily to be answerable.
W.A.No.825 OF 2003
:: 5 ::
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly
dismissed the original petition. We find no reason to interfere
with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Hence, the writ
appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed.
K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE
jes