IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22006 of 2009(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- C. RAJAN, (RETIRED STAMP DEPOT OFFICER, DISTRICT TREASURY PALAKKAD), 24/382, SREELAKSHMI, CHIRAKKADU, KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD-678 013. BY ADV. MR.V.G.ARUN MR.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (FINANCE), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL STAMP DEPOT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P. NANDAKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 22006 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 4th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner who retired from service on 31-1-2007 while he was working as Stamp Depot Officer, District Treasury, Palakkad, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P11 order passed by the Director of Treasuries fixing the sum of Rs.62,500/- as his liability and directing recovery of the said amount from his salary. 2. The pleadings disclose that action was initiated against the petitioner to recover the value of stamps found short in the stock, while he was working as the Sub Treasury Officer in the Sub Treasury at Vizhinjam. By Ext.P11 the Director of Treasuries, after notice to the petitioner, fixed the sum of Rs.62,500/- being 50% of the value of the stamp papers found short in the stock as the petitioner's liability and directed recovery of the said sum from his D.C.R.G. 3. Under rule 23 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, an appeal lies from Ext.P11 to the Government, the next higher authority. Under rule 25 of the said Rules, the period of limitation for filing an appeal is two months from the date on which a copy W.P.(C) No. 22006/09 2 of the order appealed against has been received by the appellant. In the instant case, Ext.P11 order is dated 3-7-2009. Even going by the date of Ext.P11, the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal has not expired. Since the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy by way of an appeal under rule 23 of the Rules, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should invoke the appellate remedy instead of seeking the intervention of this Court at this stage. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with the direction that in the event of the petitioner filing an appeal challenging Ext.P11 within time prescribed under rule 25 of the Rules, the appellate authority shall consider the same and pass orders thereon expeditiously and in any event within four months from the date on which such an appeal is received, after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The contentions of the petitioner on the merits are kept open. Till such time, recovery of the sum of Rs.62,500/- shall not be effected from the D.C.R.G. sanctioned to the petitioner. This will not however disentitle the petitioner from claiming payment of the balance amount of D.C.R.G. which he is entitled to. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. mn. W.P.(C) No. 22006/09 3