“The petitioner was a Range Officer who retired from service on 31-5-1990. The subject matter of this original petition is recovery of certain amounts fixed as liability on him consequent on disallowance of certain vouchers submitted by him. Initially Rs.42,359.24 was originally fixed as the amount of disallowance. Later, after adjusting certain amounts found to be admissible, the balance was fixed at Rs.35,953.24. This disallowance was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the Conservator of Forests, Olavakkod Circle, Palakkad. That ended in Ext. P3 order. In Ext. P3 order, the Conservator of Forests further reduced the amount by Rs.3,073. The balance would come to Rs.32,880.24, which is now fixed as the liability to be recovered from the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that he is not liable to pay these amounts, since the disallowance of his vouchers are not correct and legal. In so far as the liability in respect of the disallowance of vouchers submitted by the petitioner is concerned, the same can be decided only on ascertainment of facts by adducing evidence, which this Court cannot do exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, on a perusal of the impugned order, I am not in a position to conclude that the decision is perverse or arbitrary. As such, the contention of the petitioner in that regard cannot be accepted.
