IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2010 / 8TH ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 385 of 2009(V) --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.8582/2008 Dated 03/02/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ( A&E) KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 039. 3. ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS NATURE STUDY CENTRE,KALADY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683 574. 4. THE SUB TEASURY OFFICER SUB TREASURY,NORTH PARAVUR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683 513. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI A.J.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- P.R.SOMASUNDARA PANICKER (RETIRED FOREST GUARD, KURUSUMUDI FOREST STATION MALAYATTOOR) RESIDING AT PAVANA HOUSE, VALLUVALLY KOONAMMAVU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.N.SANTHA FOR R1 SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ R.P. No.385/2009-V in W.P.(C).No.8582/2008 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 29th day of June, 2010 O R D E R This review petition is filed by the respondents in the writ petition. The writ petitioner retired from service as Forest Guard. The writ petition was filed challenging the proceedings, fixing the liability as well as the recovery sought against the D.C.R.G etc. 2. The writ petition was disposed of by Judgment dated 03/02/2009. It was held that the fixation of liability without any notice to the petitioner cannot survive. Accordingly, it was held that the fixation of liability and directions to recover the same from the D.C.R.G are illegal. This Court further directed to disburse the withheld amount of D.C.R.G Rs.29,718/- within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the Judgment. 3. In the Review Petition it is mainly contended that the liability was fixed against the petitioner after due notice and after considering the explanation. But the above facts could not be brought to the notice of this Court at the time of arguing the case. The proceedings fixing the liability have been produced as Annexures 1 to 10. It is therefore, pointed out that the finding rendered R.P. No.385/2009 -:2:- by this Court that the liability was fixed without following any procedure, amounts to an apparent error and the same requires reconsideration. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner also. It is admitted that the above notices have been received by the petitioner. It is further pointed out that the total amount covered by Annexures 1 to 10 will be Rs.17,252/- and, therefore, the liability fixed will be only to the extent of the said amount and the balance amount out of total amount of Rs.29,718/-, can be disbursed to the petitioner. 5. The proceedings produced along with the review petition show that notices have been issued to the writ petitioner regarding the fixation of liability to the tune of Rs.17,252/-. The same was fixed, obviously, in accordance with the Rules, within three years from the date of his retirement also. Therefore, the fixation of liability as such cannot be said to be illegal. In that view of the matter, the Judgment requires modification. The review petition is allowed. 6. The total amount of liability as shown against the petitioner is Rs.17,252/-. Therefore, from out of the withheld amount, after adjusting the said amount, the balance amount, approximately Rs.12,466/-, will be R.P. No.385/2009 -:3:- disbursed to the writ petitioner within a period of one month. The review petition is accordingly disposed of. The Judgment in the writ petition will stand modified accordingly. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms