Dismissed¶43

Prakasan P. E. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Apr 2025WP(C)/40420/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala High Court (Ernakulam), single judge D. K. Singh, dismisses WP(C) No. 40420 of 2024 (2025:KER:29996) filed by Prakasan P. E., retired Assistant Manager/Manager in Charge, Kerala Forest Development Corporation Ltd, Thiruvananthapuram Division, challenging recovery of Rs.33,334/- from pensionary benefits after enquiry into T. Robinson's complaint dated 22.06.2021 regarding 6.69 km fire line fund misuse in Palod Sub Unit; recovery upheld under Part III KSR Note 3 to Rule III and Service Rules; KSSR compliance urged by respondents; objection that no separate show cause notice was issued was raised but not expressly adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

Under Part III KSR Note 3 to Rule III, the liability of an employee is required to be quantified before or after retirement, and the same is to be recovered. ¶38

Prakasan P. E. Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

WP(C) NO. 40420 OF 2024

¶2

¶3

2025:KER:29996

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH

¶7

MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶8

WP(C) NO. 40420OF 2024

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

PRAKASAN P. E.
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O N. PONNAPPAN, SARAYU, THALAYAMKULAM, THOLICODU P.O.,
PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691333

¶11

BY ADVS.
MANOJ RAMASWAMY
JOLIMA GEORGE
C.B.SABEELA
APARNA G.
MUHAMMED HAROON THAMEEM
NAMITHA BABU

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶14

REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND WILDLIFE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶15

2 KERALA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD AARANYANKOM, KARAPUZHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 686003

¶16

3 PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS & THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, AARANYAKOM, KARAPUZHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686003

¶17

4 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION, KERALA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, VAZHUTACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695014

¶18

ADV.BIMAL K.NATH – GP
ADV.KABANI DINESH -SC

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C) NO. 40420 OF 2024

2025:KER:29996

JUDGMENT

The petitioner had retired from the services of the 2^nd respondent on 31.03.2020 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition against the decision of the 2^nd respondent to recover an amount of Rs.33,334/from the petitioner.

¶25

The Kerala Forest Development Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram Division, had carried out fire protection work during the period 2019-20 and the petitioner was Assistant Manager and Manager in Charge for the said protection work. On 22.06.2021. One Mr.T.Robinson lodged a formal complaint before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & the Managing Director, stating therein that the complainant had completed 20.30Km fire line work in the Palod Sub Unit of Thiruvananthapuram, and on measurement it was

¶26

WP(C) NO. 40420 OF 2024

¶27

¶28

2025:KER:29996 found 19.50Km, but he was paid only for 12.08Km. An enquiry on the allegations was conducted, and it was found that the fund for the 6.69 km fire line was misused by the petitioner, and it was disbursed among some other employees.

¶29

The loss caused to the 2^nd respondent corporation has been recovered from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that recovering Rs.33,334/—from the petitioner’s pensionary benefits is illegal. No separate Show Cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the basis of some enquiry held behind the back; the order has been passed.

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that, in the enquiry, it has been established that the petitioner has not paid the amount for the work done by Mr. T. Robinson and the amount was misappropriated. The petitioner has worked against the interest of the corporation.

¶32

WP(C) NO. 40420 OF 2024

¶33

¶34

2025:KER:29996

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶36

Part III KSR Note 3 to Rule III provides that the liabilities of an employee should be quantified either before or after retirement and intimated to him before retirement, if possible, or after retirement within a period of three, years on becoming pensioner. The liabilities of the pensioner should be quantified and intimated to him.

¶37

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner retired from service in the year 2020 and the work under dispute was done 3 months before his retirement. It is further submitted that the recovery has been made perfectly in accordance with the KSSR Rules. Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed.

¶38

I have considered the submissions. The petitioner has been found to be guilty for an amount of Rs.33,334/-. Under Part III KSR Note 3 to Rule III, the liability of an employee is required to be quantified before or after retirement, and the same is to be recovered.

¶39

WP(C) NO. 40420 OF 2024

¶40

¶41

2025:KER:29996

¶42

Considering the aforesaid facts, Rs.33,334/—has

¶43

been recovered from the petitioner’s pensionary benefits, which I do not find is against the Service Rules. Therefore, I do not find much substance in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

¶46

D. K. SINGH JUDGE

¶47

WP(C) NO. 40420 OF 2024

¶48

¶49

2025:KER:29996

¶50

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40420/2024

¶51

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶52

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER VIDE NO.` `G.O.(MS) 118/89/F&WLD DATED 21.12.1989 ISSUED BY` `THE FOREST AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF` `KERALA`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 08.07.2021 FILED` `BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RANGE FOREST` `OFFICER, CHULLIMANOOR FLYING SQUAD`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.02.2022 SENT BY` `THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR (VIGILANCE` `& FOREST INTELLIGENCE) TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED` `22.06.2022 VIDE NO. C1-3764/19/5448 ISSUED BY THE` `3RD RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16.07.2022 SUBMITTED` `BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.05.2024 ISSUED BY` `THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`
`EXHIBIT R3(1)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE` `PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON` `22.06.2021`
`EXHIBIT R3(2)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED TO THE COMPLAINANT` `FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED` `15.07.2021`

Prakasan P. E. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakasan P. E. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gosalakrishnan Nair v Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited

A.Sathyan Vs State of Kerala

Mithun. S. Ghosh Vs Airports Authority of India

A.Rahim Vs a.P.M.Mohammed Hanish.Ias

Palakkad Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd. Vs M S Shajan

Shibin V.S Vs Travancore Devaswam Board