PAPPACHAN S Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner retired from Government service as Secretary of Budhannor Grama Panchayat on 31 /08/1998. The DCRG due to him was not released, as the liabilities against him, which he incurred while serving in various Grama Panchayats, were not finalized. He had worked as Secretary in Vazhikkadavu. Poruvazhy, Vallikkunnam, Budhannor and Thiruvandoor Grama Panchayats. After the lapse of about 3 years of his retirement, he was served with a notice on 22/10/2001, pointing out certain liabilities of him as per the audit officer s report. He submitted his explanation on 17/06/2002. Later, he was informed by Ext.P1 letter dated 28/11/2002 that all the proceedings initiated to recover the labilities, as per paragraphs 36, 39 & 47 of the audit report, were dropped. It was also informed that for other labilities, action will be taken against him. Later, the Deputy Director of Panchayats, served Ext.P2 notice dated 18/01/2003 on him pointing out that the liability of the petitioner will come to Rs. 3,57,908.36/-. He submitted his explanation, and thereafter, the Deputy Director passed Ext.P4 final order dated 22/11/ 2004, fixing his liability as Rs. 2,67,209.36/-. The said officer also asked the concerned officers to take action as per Ruling No. 6 of Rule 116 of Part-III KSR, to recover the amount due from the petitioner. The DCRG amount due to him is Rs. 90,669/-. The said amount was already adjusted towards the liability of Vallikkunnam Grama Panchayat, which is evident from Ext.P4. This writ petition is filed, challenging Ext.P4 and also for a direction to repay the DCRG due to him with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 31/08/1998.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on Note 3 of Rule 3 of Part III KSR and submitted that liability, if any, has to be fixed against a pensioner within three years of his/her retirement. Since the same was not fixed within the said time limit, the retention of the DCRG was illegal. The learned Counsel has also relied on Ruling No. 5 of Rule 116 of Part-III KSR. He has also brought to our notice Ruling No. 6 under the above Rule and contended that since within one year of retirement, the liability was not fixed, the DCRG should have been released after one year. So, the direction issued under Ext.P4 is illegal. Therefore the petitioner prays for quashing Ext.P4 and for ordering release of the DCRG due to him.

(3.) The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, resisting the prayers in the writ petition. According to the Government, the liability has been fixed in accordance with law against the petitioner, and the DCRG amount being only Rs. 90,669/-, the same was adjusted towards the liability, and the balance amount has to be recovered from him.