IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 9162 of 2006(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- R.S. SAINUDHEEN, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O. LATE SYED MOHAMMED, RETIRED TAHSILDAR, `LAL COTTAGE', 131ST MILE, MUNDAKKAYAM ROAD, KARINILAM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE SRI.C.M.ABRAHAM (CHALAMADAM) RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.) KANJIRAPPALLY. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (ELECTION) & ENQUIRY OFFICER, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR - R1TOR3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.9162/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT. 24.2.1999 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 11.3.99. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 16.3.06. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.9162/2006 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenged Exts.P1 and P3. Ext.P1 is a notice issued by the Enquiry Officer appointed by the District Collector to conduct an enquiry, against the petitioner on the allegation that, in the matter of assessment of a builidng tax in respect of certain buildings there was under assessment of tax and thus causing loss to the Government. Ext.P3 is a notice issued under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for realising the loss allegedly caused on account of the underassessment of tax. 2. The facts of the case are that, the petitioner was working as a Tahsildar and on attaining the age of superannuation he retired from service on 31.3.1990. Long after his retirement on 26.3.1992, the Accountant General 2 in the local audit report pointed out short assessment of tax under the Building Tax Act. Following the report of the Accountant General, an enquiry officer was appointed for conducting a formal enquiry against the petitioner in terms of the provisions contained in the KCS(CC&A) Rules 1960 , by Ext.P1. The petitioner submitted his reply as per Ext.P2 and it is stated that thereafter he did not hear anything more from the Enquiry Officer. The records show that sometime in 1999, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report and apparently based on the report so submitted, the first respondent issued Ext.P3 revenue recovery notice for realising an amount of Rs.63,560/- from the petitioner. It is in this background this writ petition has been filed challenging the recovery proceedings. 3. Affidavits have been filed by the respondents. In the first counter affidavit, though it was contended that notice was issued to the petitioner under the Kerala Public Accountants Act before recovery proceedings were issued, realizing that the same was a factual mistake, an additional 3 affidavit has been filed confessing the mistake. According to them, it is based on the audit objection raised by the Accountant General that the proceedings were initiated and the reason for the whole proceedings is short assessment of tax which resulted in loss to the Government. 4. Irrespective of the merits of the controversy that is involved, I am of the view that the proceedings for recovery now initiated against the petitioner cannot be sustained. This is for the reason that, in terms of the provisions under Rule 3 Note 3 Part-III KSR, the proceedings ought to have been completed within 3 years of retirement of a Government servant. In this case admittedly the petitioner has retired from service as early as on 31.3.1990 and the enquiry report itself is admittedly submitted sometime in 1999. It is much later to that on 16.3.2006 revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated by Ext.P3. This is beyond the time limit prescribed by the aforesaid provision and for that reason the proceedings cannot be sustained. 4 5. That apart the respondents themselves have confessed that no notice has been issued under the provisions of the Kerala Public Accountants Act. For that reason as well the proceedings cannot be sustained. Therefore I quash Ext.P3, as the proceedings against the petitioner are totally illegal. Writ Petition is allowed as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 5