IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2009 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1931 OP.No. 4479 of 2002(G) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.M.MOIDEEN ABDUL KHADAR, PULAVAR HOUSE, PILATHUR MEDU, PUDUNAGARAM P.O., CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 503. BY ADV. SRI.D.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST & WILD LIFE (A) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSEVATOR OF FORESTS (WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.ANTONY MUKKATH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO R3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP NO.4479/2002 ORDER ON CMP NO.7979/2002 IN OP NO.4479/2002 DISMISSED. 29/10/2009 SD/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF LETTER NO.WEP-12126/97 DATED 4/3/98 OF THE PETITIONER. P2 : COPY OF EXPLANATION DATED 12/3/98 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P3 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 27/3/98 FROM CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, OLAVACODE CIRCLE. P4 : COPY OF REPLY DATED 30/3/98 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P5 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 30/3/98 OF FOREST CONSERVATOR OLVACODE RANGE. P6 : COPY OF ORDER NO.G3-5419/96 DATED 27/3/98 OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, PALAKKAD-9. P7 : COPY OF APPEAL DATED 31/3/98 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CCF(WFP). P8 : COPY OF ORDER NO.G3-5419/98 DATED 24/4/98 ISSUED BY DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, PALAKKAD. P9: COPY OF OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 11/5/98 BEFORE THE DFO, PALAKKAD. P10 : COPY OF ORDER NO.WFP(1)32574/96 DATED 14/7/98 ISSUED BY CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS(WFP) TO THE PETITIONER. P11 : COPY OF APPEAL DATED 20/7/98 SUBMITTED BY THE petitioner BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CCF (GENERAL). P12 : COPY OF MEMO DATED 21/4/99 ISSUED BY the CCF (PROTECTION) P13 : COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENCE DATED 21/6/99 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR (PROTECTION) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P14 : COPY OF SHOW CASUE NOTICE NO.B2-24504/99 DATED 12/8/99 ISSUED BY THE CCF (PROTECTION) OP NO.4479/2002 P15 : COPY OF EXPLANATION DATED 15/9/99 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CCF (PROTECTION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P16 : COPY OF ORDER NO.B7/24504/99 DATED 30/10/99 ISSUED BY CCF (PROTECTION) P17 : COPY OF PENSION PAYMENT ORDER NO.F1-25483 DATED 12/11/99 ISSUED BY CCF(P), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P18 : COPY OF APPEAL DATED 30/11/99 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1. P19 : COPY OF ORDER NO.452/2000/FORT DATED 8/9/2000 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. P20 : COPY OF REVIEW PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1 DATED 4/12/2000. P21 : COPY OF ARGUMENT NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1. P22 : COPY OF ORDER NO.492/01/FOREST DATED 20/11/2001 OF R1. P23 : COPY OF RECEIPT NO.F/STG./98-99/1036 DATED 20/3/99 ISSUED BY KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION. P24 : COPY OF CERTIFICATE NO.03/97/F1/PKD DATED 12/2/97 ISSUED BY FOOD INSPECTOR, PALAKKAD TO THE FOREST RANGE OFFICE, OTTAPPALAM. P25 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 19/8/96 FROM C.K.VIJAYAKUMAR, FOREST RANGE OFFICER, OTTAPPALAM TO THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, OLVAKKODE RANGE. P26 : COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA MANUAL. P27 : COPY OF SPECIFICATION CHART OBTAINED FROM INTERNET WEBSITE OF OREGON FREEZE DRY AMERICAN COMPANY. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ O.P. No.4479 of 2002 -------------------------- Dated, this the 29th day of October, 2009 ------------------------------ J U D G M E N T The petitioner retired from service on 30/6/1999 as an Assistant Conservator of Forests. In this original petition, he is seeking to quash Exts.P16, P17, P19 & P24, in so far as it fixes a liability of Rs.26,400/- on him. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that during the period from 19/8/1996 to 13/6/1997, the petitioner was working in the Ottappalam Range as a Range Officer. During that period, free food programme for tribal population sponsored by the United Nations was implemented in several districts of the State, and one of the districts, where this scheme was implemented, was Palakkad. It was implemented through the Social Forestry Wing of the Forest Department. While the petitioner's predecessor, one Mr.Vijayakumar was the Range Officer, two metric tons of pulses were available at Olavakkode Range to be handed over for distribution in the Ottappalam Range. The petitioner submits that O.P.No.4479/2002 -2- by Ext.P5 letter dated 19/8/1996, his predecessor replied to the Range Officer, Olavakkode requesting him to use the pulses within his area as the accompanying rice was already distributed there. 3. It was at that stage, the petitioner got transferred and took charge at the Ottappalam Range. Although letter dated 19/08/1996 (Ext.P25) was written as above, reply came only on 01/02/1997, by which the Range Officer, Olavakkode requested the petitioner to take delivery of 2 MTs of pulses. According to the petitioner, the pulses were supplied by the United Nations as early as in 1993. Further as per the communication of the Ware Housing Corporation dated 20/03/1999, copy of which was made available by the petitioner, the stock reached the godown on 04/08/1993 itself. By lapse of time, according to him, the pulses had become unfit for human consumption, and therefore, on receipt of letter dated 01/02/1997 referred to above, the petitioner submits that he got the pulses inspected. It is stated that accordingly, Ext.P24 report dated 12/02/1997 was obtained, which certified that the pulses were unfit for human consumption. The petitioner also says that at this instance, the DFO also got the pulses inspected by the O.P.No.4479/2002 -3- Food Inspector and obtained a report dated 25/03/1997 to the effect that the pulses were unfit for human consumption. 4. As a result of this, the pulses were not distributed within the Ottappalam Range. Alleging that in the process, the stock received was allowed to be decayed causing loss to the Government, proceedings were initiated by Ext.P6 dated 27/3/1998, proposing to fix Rs.26,400/- as the liability of the petitioner. Though he pursued the matter by filing appeal, the petitioner did not succeed. Finally, Ext.P14 show cause notice dated 13/8/99 was issued, to which Ext.P15 reply was filed by the petitioner, and that ended in Ext.P16 order dated 30/10/1999 fixing liability of Rs.26,400/- on the petitioner. He filed appeal and review, which were also unsuccessful, and as at present, Rs.26,400/- has been fixed as his liability. It is this liability, which is now questioned. 5. It is a fact that 2 MTs of pulses were earmarked for distribution to the tribal population through the Social Forestry Wing of the Forest Department at Ottappalam. It is also an admitted position that this much of quantity was not distributed and was wasted. The question is whether the petitioner is to be made liable O.P.No.4479/2002 -4- for the loss, and if liable, certainly he is bound to make good the loss, and the proceedings initiated also cannot be faulted. 6. As already noticed, the petitioner assumed charge only on 19/8/1996 at Ottappalam Range. Shri.Vijayakumar was his predecessor. When Shri.Vijayakumar was asked to lift the quantity from Olavakkode, by Ext.P25 letter he had asked for its distribution there itself, for the reason that the accompanying rice was already utilised in that area. The reply to Ext.P25 received only on 01/2/1997, and by the time, the petitioner came into the picture. It is on record that the 2 MTs in question was a part of the stock of pulses, which were received in the godown as early as on 04/8/1993, and that at the instance of the petitioner, the stock was got verified on two occasions, and on both the occasions, the report received was that it become unfit for human consumption. 7. If that be the factual position, I cannot find fault with the petitioner in not having distributed the goods in question causing loss to the Government in the process. On the other hand, if, as revealed from the records, the goods were received as early as on 04/8/1993, the authorities themselves should be accused of having O.P.No.4479/2002 -5- attempted to distribute such stale and unfit goods for the consumption of the tribal population. In the absence of any culpable conduct on the part of the petitioner, I do not think that there is any justification for making him liable for Rs.26,400/- as has been done in the instant case. Therefore, I see no justification for this Court to sustain the liability fixed, and accordingly, the impugned orders will stand set aside, and the respondents are directed to release the amount withheld from the DCRG of the petitioner. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. This original petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg