Petitioner, a retired KSEB employee, challenged an order fastening loss liability on him through revenue recovery or civil suit. Court held no inquiry was conducted involving evidence and the Public Accountants Act was inapplicable.
Ext P6 order was quashed. Respondents prevented from recovering amount under Public Accountants Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2016/5TH JYAISHTA, 1938
WP(C).No. 8500 of 2011 (J)
PETITIONER:
V.VELAYUDHAN CHETTIAR,AGED 59 YEARS, SR.SUPERINTENDENT (RETD), K.S.E.B, `AISWARYA', KOTTUKANJIRAMVILA, PAPPANAMCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED SHIRAZ
RESPONDENT(S):
BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 8500 of 2011 (J)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS:
| EXT. P1 | : TRUE OFFI |
PHOTOCOPY OF CER. |
LETTER DATED | 2.1.2010 OF ACCOUNTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXT. P2 | : TRUE 2ND |
PHOTOCOPY OF RESPONDENT. |
NOTICE DATED | 31.8.2010 OF |
| EXT. P3 | : TRUE PETI |
PHOTOCOPY OF TIONER. |
REPLY DATED | 21.10.2010 OF |
| EXT. P4 | : TRUE 2ND |
PHOTOCOPY OF RESPONDENT. |
NOTICE DATED | 17.12.2010 OF |
| EXT. P5 | : TRUE |
PHOTOCOPY OF | REPLY DATED | 10.1.2011 OF PETITIONER. |
| EXT. P6 | : TRUE 2ND |
PHOTOCOPY OF RESPONDENT. |
ORDER DATED | 22.2.2011 OD |
| EXT. P7 | : TRUE |
PHOTOCOPY OF | RELIEVING ME | MO DATED 22.12.2004. |
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/
P.V.ASHA, J.
W.P.(C) No.8500 of 2011
Dated this the 26th day of May, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who retired from service on 31.5.2006 while working as Senior Superintendent in the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB for short), is challenging Ext.P6 order, by which the Chief Engineer ordered that a sum of Rs.1,12,614/- (Rupees One lakh twelve thousand six hundred and fourteen only) would be fixed as his liability towards the loss sustained by the Board and the same would be recovered through revenue recovery action as per the Kerala Public Accountants Act, 1963 by filing a civil suit.
the period from 12.12.2002 to 22.12.2004. By Ext.P7 proceedings dated 22.12.2004, he was relieved from PF section on promotion as Senior Superintendent. He was thereupon posted in the office of the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Alapuzha. One Sri.P.R.Venkateswara Prabhu submitted
W.P.(C) No.8500 of 2011
:2:
application for voluntary retirement on 15.4.2002. But the provident fund amount due to him was paid only on 19.12.2006. Therefore KSEB had to pay interest on account of the delay. Alleging that the KSEB suffered loss, on account of the payment of interest, a notice was issued to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 dated 2.1.2010 directing him to report for a personal hearing before the Accounts Officer (Enquiry Officer). It was stated in that letter that a preliminary enquiry was conducted on the basis of a complaint from the said Sri.P.R.Venkateswara Prabhu, Assistant Executive Engineer who complained delay in settling his dues towards the GPF. In that preliminary enquiry, it was found that there was negligence on the part of the officers and staff of GPF section in settling of GPF Closure and on account of the delay caused by them, a sum of Rs.1,48,651/- (Rupees One lakh fourty eight thousand six hundred and fifty one only) had to be paid towards interest.
:3:
W.P.(C) No.8500 of 2011
never dealt with by him as the same was not forwarded to his seat. It is the case of the petitioner that the inquiry officer furnished a report in his favour. Thereafter, he received Ext.P2 notice dated 31.8.2010 from the Chief Engineer in which it was stated that on detailed enquiry it was revealed that petitioner was responsible for the delay in disbursing the GPF. Therefore, it was proposed to recover half of the interest amount of Rs.1,48,651/- (Rupees One lakh fourty eight thousand six hundred and fifty one only) from him. The petitioner was asked to submit explanation, if any against the said proposal. In answer to this the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation stating that there was no occasion for him to deal with the application of Sri.P.R.Venkateswara Prabhu which can be revealed from the records. He asserted that the relevant file was never handed over to him during his tenure in that particular section during 2002-2004 and he cannot be made responsible for the loss caused. Thereafter he received another notice Ext.P4 dated 17.12.2010 from the Chief Engineer saying that the petitioner was the person who spent maximum period in closure
:4:
W.P.(C) No.8500 of 2011
section and therefore it was proposed to recover a sum of Rs.1,12,614/-(Rupees One lakh twelve thousand six hundred and fourteen only), the proportionate amount of interest from him as against the earlier proposal to recover half of the total loss of Rs.1,48,651/-(Rupees One lakh fourty eight thousand six hundred and fifty one only). In answer to this show cause notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation again pointing out that the file was not handed over to him during his tenure from 12.12.2002 to 22.12.2004. He stated that the enquiry officer had already found that he was not the person responsible for the delay. He also pointed out the injustice in taking action against him alone, when the PF amount was disbursed only in 2006, and when the petitioner had worked in the section only up to 2004. The petitioner also pointed out that there was no reason for recovery of the said amount without conducting any enquiry regarding his involvement, in the absence of any evidence for the same. But the Chief Engineer issued Ext.P6 order fastening his liability at Rs.1,12,641/- (Rupees One lakh twelve thousand six hundred and fourteen only) and directing recovery of the same
W.P.(C) No.8500 of 2011
:5:
by proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act as per the Kerala Public Accountants Act or by filing civil suits.
:6:
W.P.(C) No.8500 of 2011
effected on 19.12.2006 and a sum of Rs.1,48,651/- (Rupees One lakh fourty eight thousand six hundred and fifty one only) had to be paid towards interest. The Board had ordered to enquire into the loss caused to the Board as per its order dated 25.10.2008 against nine officers. After conducting a departmental enquiry as against two of them, who alone were in service, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 28.6.2010, according to which
Smt.Shobhana, retired Senior Superintendent and the petitioner were solely responsible for the delay in processing the PF closure application. It was based on that report, show cause notice was issued and on the basis of the long service of the petitioner in the concerned section, it was decided to recover a sum of Rs.1,12,614/- (Rupees One lakh twelve thousand six hundred and fourteen only) from the petitioner. The KSEB has every right to recover the liability found against the petitioner as per rule 59 (a) and (b) of Part III KSR.
the enquiry report is not produced or furnished to the petitioner and no action can be taken on the basis of the enquiry conducted
:7:
W.P.(C) No.8500 of 2011
behind his back. The petitioner asserts that the application was never forwarded. It is also pointed out that the disbursement of PF amount was made after two years of his relief from the section and even then the liability was fastened only on Smt.Shobhana who retired on 31.3.2010 and the petitioner who was relieved from the section on 22.12.2004.
:8:
W.P.(C) No.8500 of 2011
employee after 4½ years of his retirement, by issuing a show cause notice to him and calling for an explanation after more than 3 years of his retirement. As long as there is no finding as to any loss caused to the KSEB by the petitioner in an inquiry conducted as per rules while he was in service or by way of proceedings continued after retirement as in the case of proceedings for dismissal, the respondents do not have any authority to recover any loss from the petitioner.
W.P.(C) No.8500 of 2011
:9:
case of inquiry for dismissal. Or else there should have been proceedings initiated after his retirement, under rule 3 of Part III KSR, in which case also inquiry had to be conducted as in a case awarding dismissal, that too could have been only in respect of an incident which occurred within a period of 4 years. No such inquiry was conducted against him either when he was in service or after his retirement. Rule 58 or 59 relied on by the respondents in the counter affidavit do not provide for ordering recovery from a retired hand. In the absence of any rule which authorises the respondent to initiate any proceedings against a retired employee, the conclusion arrived at by the respondent that the petitioner caused loss to the KSEB and the decision to recover the proportionate loss from him are beyond the powers of the respondents. The proceedings culminated in Ext.P6 are without any authority.
:10:
W.P.(C) No.8500 of 2011
revealed from the files. It is as against those contentions that the respondents chose to find him responsible for the loss and to fasten liability on him. I find it highly unfair and arbitrary on the part of the respondents to shut the doors of minimum principles of natural justice before a pensioner who retired years back. When the petitioner asserts that the relevant file was not dealt with by him and he was not the person responsible and his involvement if at all can be only during the period from 2002-04 and when the records will reveal whether the petitioner is responsible for dealing with that particular file or delay in that particular file, a finding could have been arrived at only after adducing evidence in a properly constituted proceedings, permissible under law, giving sufficient opportunity to defend his case.
the amount by revenue recovery as per Public Accountants Act. The counter affidavit does not answer the contention of the petitioner that Public Accountants Act cannot be invoked in the case of employees of KSEB. As per the provisions contained in
:11:
W.P.(C) No.8500 of 2011
Public Accountants Act i.e as per section 2B, a person employed in the service of Government or any other authority or institution notified by Government alone can come under the definition of Public Accountants and the Public Accountants Act can be applied only against such public accountants. Therefore the direction proposing recovery under the Kerala Public Accountants Act is unsustainable.
W.P.(C) No.8500 of 2011
:12:
in which he was found responsible for the delay. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner was the person responsible for the delay or for the loss caused to the KSEB. The entire proceedings leading to Ext.P6 are therefore unsustainable.
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA JUDGE
rkc
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent board can fasten financial liability on a retired employee without conducting a proper inquiry and adducing evidence.
Whether the Kerala Public Accountants Act, 1963 can be invoked to recover loss from an employee of KSEB.
Whether the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner more than four years after his retirement are lawful.
V. VELAYUDHAN CHETTIAR
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KSEB
P.V. ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
