IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28301 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.I.CHARLES, S/O.ALOOR IYYAPPAN, AGED 63 YEARS, SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (RETIRED),IRRIGATION NORTH CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE (RESIDING AT ALOOKARAN, KOMBARA, IRINJALAKUDA - 680121) BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESETNED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).28301/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner retired from service as Superintending Engineer in the Irrigation Department on 31.12.2001. He contends that five years after his retirement, he was served with a show cause notice alleging that he had caused a delay in clearing the site for the work of Pre-vocational Training Centre attached to the Junior Technical School, Koratty. Ext.P2 explanation was submitted by the petitioner. Petitioner maintained that delay, if at all, cannot be attributed to him, since he had left the Public Works Department on 12.12.1990 and the delay in approaching Forest Department for a site clearance till 29.4.1991 cannot be laid at his doorstep. 2. Government passed Ext.P4 order determining the loss of Rs.6.46 Lakhs and apportioned the liability among four officers. Petitioner's liability has been fixed at Rs.1,29,200/- and the Chief Engineer has been asked to recover the amount by filing a Civil Suit under ruling 6 to Rule 116 of Part-III of W.P.(C).28301/09 2 the KSR. Ext.P4 has been challenged in this writ petition. 3. I heard learned Government Pleader also. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P4 is unsustainable for various reasons. Firstly, the order was passed without hearing the petitioner. Secondly, the Government has proceeded to adjudicate the loss on its own. 4. In my view, Ext.P4 order can only be treated as a decision taken by the Government to recover the loss allegedly caused to them on account of alleged inaction on the part of the petitioner and the other delinquent officials. Ext.P4 by itself cannot be treated as the basis for recovery of any amount from the petitioner, by way of alleged loss caused by the petitioner. It can only be treated as a deliberation of the Government and if the appropriate competent authority files a Civil Suit against the petitioner for recovery of the loss, then it will obviously be open to the petitioner to resist the plea for recovery as also defend any action for recovery of any damages from the petitioner. The finding in Ext.P4, W.P.(C).28301/09 3 cannot by itself be treated as the basis for any action for recovery. It is upto the Government to prove the loss caused to them and then seek recovery of amounts from the delinquent officials by way of damages. If this aspect is clarified, then it is obvious that the petitioner cannot consider himself as aggrieved merely by Ext.P4 since it is open to him to defend any such action as and when the Government files a Suit for recovery of any amounts, by way of damages against the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs