VINCENT Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner retired while working as Assistant Settlement Officer on 30.11.1992. It is a post equivalent to the cadre of Deputy Collector. Subsequent to the retirement, proceedings were initiated against him both under the Public Accountants Act, 1963 and under R.3 Part III KSR. The former was to recover the amount which fell in his custody and was allegedly misappropriated by him. The latter was, on that reason, to reduce the pension. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging those proceedings initiated respectively as per Exts. P4 and P5. He also seeks a direction to the respondents not to enforce Exts. P4 and P5.

(2.) Exhibit P4 was issued as already mentioned above invoking the provisions of S.3(1) of the Kerala Public Accountants Act, 1963 by the District Collector. Ext. P5 is issued by the Commissioner and Secretary of the Revenue Department of the Government.

(3.) Relying on the decision in Padmanabha Iyer v. State of Kerala ( 1974 KLT 556 ), the petitioner contends that Ext. P4 is illegal in so far as it did not contain the minimum necessary details to defend it. The Collector was exercising quasi judicial power in fastening a liability on the petitioner and therefore, details ought to have been included in Ext. P4. It is also contended by the counsel that by Ext. P4 the Collector had already found him guilty and fastened him with the liability of a huge amount mentioned therein. Therefore, an enquiry should have been held even before such alleged provisional conclusion as contained in Ext. P4. It is also contended by the counsel that in terms of S.3(1) of the Act, a detailed statement of liability ought to have been drawn up by the Collector and served on the petitioner. In so far as the Collector did not do so Ext. P4 is illegal and violative of the provisions of S.3(1) of the Act. It is further contended relying on the decision reported in Paramu Pillai v. District Collector ( 1989 (1) KLT 224 ) that if loss is caused by the government servant by negligence or by misconduct otherwise than in respect of monies or securities, the Collector cannot resort to the proceedings under S.3(1) of the Public Accountants Act. Government should resort to the proceedings under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules and not under the Public Accountants Act. Counsel contends that all kinds of loss allegedly caused by Government servant cannot be recovered resorting to the Public Accountants Act. On that count also, the counsel for the petitioner assails Ext. P4.