HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A former Government Pleader is placed in a peculiar situation in which he is served with a revenue recovery notice for an alleged loss caused to the Government. The loss is alleged to have been caused due to a lapse, allegedly committed by the Petitioner, in applying for a certified copy of the judgment in a land acquisition reference case.

(2.) Petitioner was an additional Government Pleader during the period from 9/3/1992 to 28/7/1997. By Ext.P1 show cause notice dtd. 20/5/2005, petitioner was called upon to explain a delay of 4 1/2 years in obtaining and forwarding a copy of the judgment in a LAR case [LAR No.296/94]. It was alleged that even though the judgment was delivered on 31/1/1997, a copy of the judgment was not given to the District Collector and the copy was received only on 16/6/2001. The notice further stated that the Government suffered huge losses due to the default committed by the petitioner. Even though the show cause notice was issued almost 8 years after the term of the petitioner as Government Pleader ended, still, an explanation was submitted which is produced as Ext.P2. In the reply notice, petitioner explained that he had made an application on 31/1/1997 itself, however, the application was rejected for non-payment of stamp after 18/3/1998, while his term as Government Pleader ended on 28/7/1997.

(3.) By another notice dtd. 3/3/2008 (Ext.P3) petitioner was informed that since the copy application was filed only on 6/6/1997 and due to the failure to inform the successor in the office about the application for a copy of the judgment, the Government suffered a loss of Rs.72,033.00. The notice also sought for an explanation from the petitioner as to why the said amount ought not to be recovered from him. A detailed explanation was submitted by the petitioner in which it was further informed that the decree in the judgment in LAR.No.269/1994 was prepared only on 7/11/1997 and stamp was called for, pursuant to the application for copy, only on 18/3/1998 alone. However, due to the failure of the Government to furnish the requisite stamp, the application is known to have been rejected. He thus denied any negligence or liability on his part.