P.K. THANKAN Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner is the appellant. The Writ Petition was filed by him, challenging Ext.P4 notice issued by the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery) for recovering Rs. 1,07,259/ - from him on the requisition made by the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are the following: The appellant retired from service on 31.8.2007, while working as Taluk Supply Officer. Between 20.5.1986 and 2.4.190 the appellant had worked as Unit Manager in the Unit Depot of the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (for short "Supplyco") at Thiruvalla. After termination of his deputation, he was served with a charge -sheet, alleging misappropriation of various amounts during various periods from the Supplyco. The appellant submitted his explanation. The Government, on finding that his explanation was not satisfactory, by order dated 27.6.1997, referred the charges to the Vigilance Tribunal for detailed enquiry. The Tribunal completed the enquiry and submitted its report on 9.10.1998. The appellant was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. So, the Tribunal suggested to permanently reduce his monthly pension by Rs. 100/ - under Rule 3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. For charges 2, 3, 4 and 5, it was suggested to recover an amount of Rs. 11,237/ - from him. For charge No. 6, the Tribunal suggested that the Departmental authorities may examine the loss and recover the same from the appellant. Before the submission of the report, the appellant retired from service on 31.8.1997. In implementation of the said report, further proceedings were initiated against the appellant. The details of those proceedings are not strictly relevant in this case. Concerning the liability under charge No. 6, the appellant submits, the same was finalised and communicated to him on 21.8.2001. Challenging that order, he filed O.P. No. 614/2003. During the pendency of the Original Petition, he was served with Ext.P1(2) liability certificate dated 7.5.2005, fixing his liability as Rs. 1,07,259/ -. The Government paid the said amount to the Supplyco and the same was recovered by the Government from the DCRG payable to the appellant. The Original Petition was finally allowed by Ext.P2 judgment. It was found that since three years have elapsed after his retirement, recovery from the DCRG was not permissible. Therefore, it was ordered to refund the amount recovered from his DCRG. Thereafter, as per the direction of the Government, the Supplyco by Ext.P3 covering letter dated 16.3.2007, forwarded a cheque for Rs. 1,07,259/ - to the appellant and he received the said amount. The Government also directed the Supplyco to recover the said amount from him through revenue recovery proceedings. Thereupon, the Supplyco moved the revenue recovery machinery and Ext.P4 notice was served on the appellant, which was impugned in the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence this appeal.

(3.) THE Supplyco, on the other hand, submitted that the cause of action for recovery of the amount arose for it on payment of the amount under Ext.P3 on 16.3.2007. Therefore, the notice has been served well within the period of limitation.