C.K.SURESHBABU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed O.A.No.1156/2013 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal challenging an order passed by the Government dismissing the appeal filed by him, thereby confirming the order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer on 15.11.2012 adjusting DCRG of Rs.2,14,650/- towards the liability of Rs.2,38,581/- and calling upon him to remit the balance amount of Rs.23,931/-. The petitioner retired from the service of the Forest Department on 31.12.2003 while working as Forest Range Officer. In the year 2007, he approached the Lok Ayukta alleging that the DCRG amount due to him has not been paid after a considerably long period. While so, he was issued with notice dated 24.9.2007 to show cause why a liability of Rs.2,33,037/- shall not be fastened on him. In the notice it is inter alia stated that there was loss/theft of timber, the value of which is computed at Rs.3,88,395/- and it is to be shared by the Forester as well as the Forest Range Officer, in the proportion 40% and 60% respectively. The said notice was followed by order dated 5.11.2007 by which liability had been imposed on the petitioner at Rs.2,38,581/-. This came to be challenged, which finally resulted in the order dated 15.11.2012 by the Divisional Forest Officer and the appellate order dated 17.5.2011 of the Government. The Tribunal after considering the respective contentions rejected the petitioner's claim and confirmed the view of the Government.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner had retired from service on 31.12.2003, no steps had been taken to determine the liability within a period of 3 years from the date of retirement, and therefore no such liability can be fastened on the petitioner. It was only when the petitioner moved the Lok Ayukta alleging maladministration against the respondent that steps were initiated by issuing notice dated 24.9.2007. It is contended that no proper enquiry was conducted in the matter. Mr. P.K. Thankachan, who was the Forester had furnished a reply to the show cause notice inter alia stating that he had not received 157 wood logs as alleged and what was received was only 152 wood logs and that too were scattered in and around Kalpetta Forest Range. One piece was stolen and it was reported to the Ambalavayal Police Station for which Crime No. 88/2003 was registered. 142 were transported to various depots by the then contractor Sri.I.K. Sulfikar and the balance had been kept in the Kuppadi depot. Therefore, according to Sri.Thankachan, there was no loss of any timber. The petitioner took charge of Kalpetta Range Office on 21.6.2002. The details of articles received under the head of timber do not include the quantity as alleged. It is therefore submitted that the Tribunal committed serious error in approving the liability fixed on the petitioner. Learned counsel also placed before us Note 3 to Rule 3 of Part III KSR and contended that the Tribunal has misread the provisions to take a different view. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Ratheesh S. Nair v. State of Kerala and Others (2014 KHC 3030) and also another Division Bench judgment of this Court in Geetha Padmini V. State of Kerala (2020 (3) KLT 28).

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader while supporting the stand taken by the Forest Department and the Government contended that the factual aspects were not disputed by the petitioner. There is no limitation for recovering the amount from the petitioner, in so far as loss has been suffered by the Government. He also referred to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Pappachan S. v. State of Kerala and Others (2008 (4) KHC 740). The contention of the State is that a contractor Sri.P.K. Muhammed Basheer had felled certain timber and billets under the Wayanad Colonization Scheme. He committed breach of contract and abandoned the work which resulted in loss of Rs.1.393 crores to the Government as per the audit report of the Accountant General, pursuant to which action was taken to recover the loss from the Officers involved in the matter. In the Mahazar dated 12.7.1996 prepared in respect of Nenmeni Village, it was noticed that the Foresters Sri.M.P. Aravindakshan and Sri.K. Damodharan Nair had taken on stock 163 pieces of wood out of which 47 pieces (11.097 M3) were lost. The loss occurred during the tenure of petitioner and Sri.P.K.Thankachan. Therefore it was decided to recover the loss from them.