IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 2005 of 2007 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.17441/2007 Dated 19/07/2007 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER: ------------------------- P.K. THANKAN, RETIRED TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KOTHAMALIL HOUSE, PERINGARA P.O., THIRUVALLA,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERINGARA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN FOR R2 ADV. SMT.RANJINI FOR R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS FOR 1,3,4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.NO.2005/2007 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 12th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. The Writ Petition was filed by him, challenging Ext.P4 notice issued by the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery) for recovering Rs.1,07,259/- from him on the requisition made by the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The appellant retired from service on 31.8.2007, while working as Taluk Supply Officer. Between 20.5.1986 and 2.4.190 the appellant had worked as Unit Manager in the Unit Depot of the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (for short “Supplyco”) at Thiruvalla. After termination of his deputation, he was served with a charge-sheet, alleging misappropriation of various amounts during various periods from the Supplyco. The appellant submitted his explanation. The Government, on WA No.2005/2007 - 2 - finding that his explanation was not satisfactory, by order dated 27.6.1997, referred the charges to the Vigilance Tribunal for detailed enquiry. The Tribunal completed the enquiry and submitted its report on 9.10.1998. The appellant was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. So, the Tribunal suggested to permanently reduce his monthly pension by Rs.100/- under Rule 3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. For charges 2, 3, 4 and 5, it was suggested to recover an amount of Rs.11,237/- from him. For charge No.6, the Tribunal suggested that the Departmental authorities may examine the loss and recover the same from the appellant. Before the submission of the report, the appellant retired from service on 31.8.1997. In implementation of the said report, further proceedings were initiated against the appellant. The details of those proceedings are not strictly relevant in this case. Concerning the liability under charge No.6, the appellant submits, the same was finalised and communicated to him on 21.8.2001. Challenging that order, he filed O.P.No.614/2003. During the pendency of the Original Petition, he was served with WA No.2005/2007 - 3 - Ext.P1(2) liability certificate dated 7.5.2005, fixing his liability as Rs.1,07,259/-. The Government paid the said amount to the Supplyco and the same was recovered by the Government from the DCRG payable to the appellant. The Original Petition was finally allowed by Ext.P2 judgment. It was found that since three years have elapsed after his retirement, recovery from the DCRG was not permissible. Therefore, it was ordered to refund the amount recovered from his DCRG. Thereafter, as per the direction of the Government, the Supplyco by Ext.P3 covering letter dated 16.3.2007, forwarded a cheque for Rs.1,07,259/- to the appellant and he received the said amount. The Government also directed the Supplyco to recover the said amount from him through revenue recovery proceedings. Thereupon, the Supplyco moved the revenue recovery machinery and Ext.P4 notice was served on the appellant, which was impugned in the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence this appeal. 3. The only contention raised by the appellant is that the WA No.2005/2007 - 4 - liability sought to be recovered from him relates to the period in the remote past. The liability was fixed by the Government in 2001. Therefore, the revenue recovery notice now issued on 23.5.2007 is barred by limitation. 4. The Supplyco, on the other hand, submitted that the cause of action for recovery of the amount arose for it on payment of the amount under Ext.P3 on 16.3.2007. Therefore, the notice has been served well within the period of limitation. 5. We heard the learned Government Pleader also, who supported the above submission of the Supplyco. The Supplyco suffered certain loss at the hands of the appellant. The Government reimbursed the same. The cause of action for the Supplyco for recovery of the amount arose only after the repayment of the amount as per Ext.P3 in 2007. So, Ext.P4 revenue recovery notice was issued well within three years from the date the cause of action arose. Therefore, it is not hit by the WA No.2005/2007 - 5 - bar of limitation. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. C.T.Ravikumar, Judge. nm.