V.VELAYUDHAN CHETTIAR Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who retired from service on 31.5.2006 while working as Senior Superintendent in the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB for short), is challenging Ext.P6 order, by which the Chief Engineer ordered that a sum of Rs.1,12,614/ - (Rupees One lakh twelve thousand six hundred and fourteen only) would be fixed as his liability towards the loss sustained by the Board and the same would be recovered through revenue recovery action as per the Kerala Public Accountants Act, 1963 by filing a civil suit.

(2.) The facts leading to the impugned order are the following: The petitioner had been working in the provident fund section in the office of the Chief Internal Auditor of the Board since 16.7.1997. He was posted in the PF Closure section -VI for the period from 12.12.2002 to 22.12.2004. By Ext.P7 proceedings dated 22.12.2004, he was relieved from PF section on promotion as Senior Superintendent. He was thereupon posted in the office of the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Alapuzha. One Sri.P.R.Venkateswara Prabhu submitted application for voluntary retirement on 15.4.2002. But the provident fund amount due to him was paid only on 19.12.2006. Therefore KSEB had to pay interest on account of the delay. Alleging that the KSEB suffered loss, on account of the payment of interest, a notice was issued to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 dated 2.1.2010 directing him to report for a personal hearing before the Accounts Officer (Enquiry Officer). It was stated in that letter that a preliminary enquiry was conducted on the basis of a complaint from the said Sri.P.R.Venkateswara Prabhu, Assistant Executive Engineer who complained delay in settling his dues towards the GPF. In that preliminary enquiry, it was found that there was negligence on the part of the officers and staff of GPF section in settling of GPF Closure and on account of the delay caused by them, a sum of Rs.1,48,651/ - (Rupees One lakh fourty eight thousand six hundred and fifty one only) had to be paid towards interest.

(3.) Based on Ext.P1 letter, the petitioner reported before the Accounts Officer on 12.1.2010. He explained before the Accounts Officer that the application of Sri.P.R. Venkateswara Prabhu was never dealt with by him as the same was not forwarded to his seat. It is the case of the petitioner that the inquiry officer furnished a report in his favour. Thereafter, he received Ext.P2 notice dated 31.8.2010 from the Chief Engineer in which it was stated that on detailed enquiry it was revealed that petitioner was responsible for the delay in disbursing the GPF. Therefore, it was proposed to recover half of the interest amount of Rs.1,48,651/ - (Rupees One lakh fourty eight thousand six hundred and fifty one only) from him. The petitioner was asked to submit explanation, if any against the said proposal. In answer to this the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation stating that there was no occasion for him to deal with the application of Sri.P.R.Venkateswara Prabhu which can be revealed from the records. He asserted that the relevant file was never handed over to him during his tenure in that particular section during 2002 -2004 and he cannot be made responsible for the loss caused. Thereafter he received another notice Ext.P4 dated 17.12.2010 from the Chief Engineer saying that the petitioner was the person who spent maximum period in closure section and therefore it was proposed to recover a sum of Rs.1,12,614/ -(Rupees One lakh twelve thousand six hundred and fourteen only), the proportionate amount of interest from him as against the earlier proposal to recover half of the total loss of Rs.1,48,651/ -(Rupees One lakh fourty eight thousand six hundred and fifty one only). In answer to this show cause notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation again pointing out that the file was not handed over to him during his tenure from 12.12.2002 to 22.12.2004. He stated that the enquiry officer had already found that he was not the person responsible for the delay. He also pointed out the injustice in taking action against him alone, when the PF amount was disbursed only in 2006, and when the petitioner had worked in the section only up to 2004. The petitioner also pointed out that there was no reason for recovery of the said amount without conducting any enquiry regarding his involvement, in the absence of any evidence for the same. But the Chief Engineer issued Ext.P6 order fastening his liability at Rs.1,12,641/ - (Rupees One lakh twelve thousand six hundred and fourteen only) and directing recovery of the same by proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act as per the Kerala Public Accountants Act or by filing civil suits.