IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21742 of 2005(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- A.N.ASOKAN, S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 56 YEARS, SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER(RETD), "EKACHAKRA", VI/MILE, KOTTAYAM(MALABAR)P.O., KOTTAYAMPOIL, THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.K.V.PAVITHRAN, MR. M.P.JAYANANDAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D.(ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P. NANDAKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.21742/2005-L: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES RECEIVED ON 07/08/01 WITH COVERING LETTER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 18/08/01 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 07/03/2003 FIXING LIABILITY ON PETITION. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE EXTRACTS FROM PWD MANUAL SPECIFYING THE DUTIES OF WORK SUPERINTENDENT. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DTD. 25/06/2003 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/05/2004 ISSUED BY ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DTD. 31/07/2005 MADE BY PETITION TO THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 06/10/2004 FIXING LIABILITY ON PETITIONER. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 22/11/04 SUBMITTED BY PETITION TO HON'BLE MINISTER. EXT.P.10: LETTER DTD. 31/03/2005 ISSUED BY GOVT. REJECTING THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 21742 of 2005 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a retired Superintending Engineer in the Public Works Department of the Government of Kerala. 2. In this writ petition, he is aggrieved by Ext.P8, an order passed by the second respondent, directing recovery of Rs.4,896/- from the D.C.R.G. of the petitioner. 3. Ext.P1 is a memo of charges issued to the petitioner, alleging that while he was working as Executive Engineer, Building Sub Division, Thalassery during 1977 - 79, he committed irregularities mentioned therein and for this, petitioner was called upon to show cause why disciplinary action shall not be initiated and why an amount of Rs.25,007/-, being the proportionate share of loss shall not be recovered. A reply was filed and the proceedings ended with Ext.P3 order passed by the second respondent on 7- 3-2003, which reads as under:- “6. In the circumstance, Government order that his proportionate share of loss of Rs.4896/- be recovered from the DCRG of Shri A.N.Ashokan, Superintending Engineer. W.P.(C) No. 21742/05 2 Government also order that his two increments be barred without cumulative effect. As the punishment of barring increment could not be given effect, the monetary value equivalent to the amount of increments ordered to be withheld be recovered from his DCRG under Rule 11(1)(IV) (b) Kerala Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960 read with Rule 3B of Part III, Kerala Service Rules.” 4. The petitioner filed a review against this order. After hearing him, the first respondent issued Ext.P8. In this order, the punishment imposed in Ext.P3 has been dropped and Rs.4,896/- ordered to be recovered is confirmed. It is this order, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the loss is ordered to be recovered on the basis that the petitioner supervised the brick work for parapet wall, plastering of parapet wall and R.C.C. roof work. According to the learned counsel, these works were not supervised by the petitioner. It is stated that therefore, the basis on which recovery is ordered be effected is erroneous. 6. The learned Government Pleader refers to the counter affidavit wherein it is averred that the petitioner had supervised the aforesaid works W.P.(C) No. 21742/05 3 and reference is also made to the M book that was maintained for the works in question. It is also stated that only 1/3rd of the loss is sought to be recovered, taking a lenient view of the matter. 7. Exts.P4 and P8 show that the reason of ordering recovery of loss is the loss caused due to supervisory laches on the part of the petitioner, which finding is based on the entries in the M book. This is purely a factual finding. There is no material what so ever to conclude that finding is perverse. In the absence of any such material, I am not in a position to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the authorities. 8. From the counter affidavit it is evident that the Government found another Engineer responsible for 2/3rd of the loss and the petitioner is made liable only for 1/3rd. In that view of the matter, apportionment also cannot be said to be illegal, warranting interference. The petitioner has not made out a case for interference. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. mn.