AYYAPPAN.P.M. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition seeks for a direction to quash Exts. P5, P7 and P9. Ext.P5 is a notice issued by the 3 rd respondent demanding an amount of Rs. 46,493/- from the petitioner. Ext.P7 is a notice threatening initiation of revenue recovery proceedings, while Ext.P9 is a notice of revenue recovery issued under Section 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act.

(2.) Petitioner had retired from the Forest Department on 29-02-2000, as a Forest Range Officer, after putting in 23 years of service. When after retirement, proceedings for recovery of alleged liability allegedly fixed against the petitioner was proposed to be recovered from his D.C.R.G, petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 20345/2003. In the said writ petition, it was pointed out that liabilities were fixed by various Controlling officers against the petitioner in the years 2000, 2001 and 2002. However on none of those occasion notices were issued to the petitioner before fixing such liability. It was contented in the said writ petition that even after retirement no notice was issued to him before fixing any liability. Thus when proceeding were initiated to recover the alleged liabilities allegedly fixed against the petitioner he challenged the same by the aforesaid writ petition.

(3.) By judgment dated 08.11.2006, produced as Ext.P4, this Court interfered with the impugned orders. This Court while disposing of the writ petition stated as follows: "Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P4 order of fixation of liability and the consequential Ext. P6 revenue recovery notice. It is seen from Ext. P4 proceedings that the liabilities have been fixed in 2000,2001 and 2002 etc. by various controlling officers. The main ground taken in the writ petition is that during the entire service of the petitioner for around 23 years, no notice was issued to the petitioner regarding any liability. After the retirement of the petitioner on 29.02.2000 also, no liability was fixed with any notice to the petitioner it is submitted. There is no counter affidavit. It is now settled law that under Rule 3 Part III KSR liability can be fixed only with due notice to the employee. Since, there is no dispute that the fixation of liability is made without notice to the petitioner, the impugned orders are quashed. It will be open to the 1 st respondent to recover the loss, if any, caused in the process from the erring officers.