IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 28974 of 2006(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- P.M. RAZIA BEEGUM, `ARCHANA', KRISHNAPURAM P.O., KAYAMKULAM, ALLEPPEY DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA. 4. ASST.EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KAYAMKULAM. 5. TEXT BOOK OFFICER, TEXT BOOK OFFICE, PADMAVILASOM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 7. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), KARTHIKAPPALLY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SHYSON P. MANGUZHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.28974/06 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 27/10/2003 SENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY ;OF THE REPLY DTD. 11/11/2003 SENT BY THE PETITIONEWR TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 27/11/2003 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 4/6/2004 SENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 29/7/2006 SENT BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 29/7/2006 SENT BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE P.R. RAMAN, J. = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) NO. 28974 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext.P6 and quash Exts.P1 to P6 and for a declaration that the liability found against her pursuant to Exts.P1 to P6 are arbitrary, illegal and not sustainable in law. 2. Petitioner is a pensioner who retired from the Educational Department as Assistant Educational Officer, on 31.3.1997. Subsequently, she was served with Ext.P1 notice dated 27.10.2003, from the Office of the Deputy Director of Education, Alappuzha, the third respondent herein, stating that while she was working as Headmistress, U.P.S. Kayamkulam, during the period from 1983 to 1990, she was in charge of Note Books manufacturing for students and in that period an amount of Rs. 21,928.62 was due as sales tax arrears and loss sustained due to decaying of unused materials. She was also asked to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 21,928.62 shall not be treated as per personal liability, within fifteen days of receipt of the said notice failing which the entire amount is threatened to be recovered from her. The notice states that for the period 1983-84 to 1990-91 petitioner Smt. Razia Beegum, was in charge of the note books manufacturing and sales in the Government U.P. School, Kayamkulam, that based on the spot verification made on 20.7.2003, it was found that WP(C) 28974/2006 :2: sales tax due on the sale of such note books was not paid in time and this amount along with the cost of unused note book materials along with interest thereon comes to an amount of Rs.21,928.62, which amount is held as the loss sustained by the Government during that period for which the petitioner is liable. Petitioner submitted her reply as evidenced by Ext.P2. Though the third respondent was almost satisfied with her reply Ext.P2, he referred the matter to the Text Book officer who is 5th respondent herein, as per Ext.P3. Thereafter, petitioner received Ext.P4 letter from the third respondent intimating the decision to proceed against her. Thereafter, as per Exts. P5 and P6 notices petitioner is threatened with revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of the amount as aforesaid with 5% collection charges. Aggrieved by Exts.P1 to P6, petitioner has come up with this writ petition. 3. One of the main points urged by the petitioner is that in terms of Rule 3 of part III K.S.R., liability, if any, has to be determined at any rate within a period of three years after retirement , but here more than six years have elapsed after her retirement and thus Ext.P1 notice itself issued more than six years after the retirement quantifying any amount and fastening any liability on her is clearly barred by the rules. This contention, WP(C) 28974/2006 :3: however, seems to have been accepted in Ext.P3 and the Deputy Director sought further instruction in this regard from the 5th respondent and a copy of this order was also earmarked to the petitioner. The 3rd respondent, by Ext.P4, directed the then Headmaster of the School to sell the materials and to recover the difference in the amount as loss from the petitioner. No answer whatsoever is given as to how and under what provision, the amount could be recovered six years after the retirement. It is pursuant to that order that the revenue recovery proceedings are initiated. 4. From the counter affidavit filed by the respondent State, it is obvious that the action itself was taken based on an audit report. When an audit objection is raised, nothing prevented the Officer from pointing out the rule under which there is a clear bar for taking action after a period of three years. Merely because an audit objection is raised, the authorities proceed to recover such amount without raising any objection to the audit report, which lead the petitioner to filing of this writ petition, during the period when she has to enjoy a peaceful retirement life. The view taken by the Deputy Director in Ext.P3 is perfectly correct since in terms of Part III, Rule 3 KSR no liability could have been fixed on the petitioner after three years of retirement for any loss alleged to have been sustained during the WP(C) 28974/2006 :4: period in connection with her service. Hence on this short ground the revenue recovery notice issued against her is quashed. The original petition is allowed with costs. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) knc/-