IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP.No. 20127 of 2001(U) ------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- T.J. CHACKO, S/O. LATE JOSHUWA, AGED 60 YEARS, DHARSANA, MALLUSSERY P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 041. BY ADVS. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.J.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, SURVEY RANGE OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 2. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM. 3. SECRETARY, PUTHUPPALLY TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 794, PUTHUPPALLY, KOTTAYAM. 4. V.R. CHANDRASEKHARAN, UPPER DIVISION CLERK, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 5. K.K. SUDHAKARAN, WATCHMEN (RETD.) WATER AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, NOW RESIDING AT WATER AUTHORITY QUARTERS, THIRUVANCHIYOOR, KOTTAYAM. *CORRECTED AS K.K. SUDHAKARAN, WATCHMEN (RETD.) RESIDING AT KUNNUMMEL VEEDU, THIRUVANCHIYOOR P.O., POOVATHUMMODE, KOTTAYAM. *CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED 19.9.02 IN CMP NO. 44784/2002. ...2/- OP.No. 20127 of 2001(U) -2- 6. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. R1, R2 & R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.T. MUHAMOOD R3 BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW JOHN SRI.BABY THOMAS THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...3/- OP.No. 20127 of 2001(U) -3- ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 32652/2001 & C.M.P. NO. 32627/2001 IN OP. NO. 20127/2001 DISMISSED 27/05/2011 SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn ...4/- OP.No. 20127 of 2001(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. 594/2001 OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF SURVEY (RANGE) KOTTAYAM DATED 30/4/2001. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24/5/2001 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P3 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30/5/2001 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5/6/2001 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P5 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. 3322/97-A, DATED 11/6/2001 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` O.P. No. 20127 of 2001 U ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 27th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner submits that he is a Peon retired from the office of the first respondent. His retirement was on 30.11.2000. While in service, it appears that the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 had availed of loans from the 3rd respondent, to which each one of them stood as surety for the other. On retirement, towards DCRG, he was sanctioned an amount of `1,16,738/- and Earned Leave surrendered at `46,709/-. According to the petitioner, default was committed by respondents 4 and 5 as also by himself, in paying the amount due to the Bank and, therefore, the first respondent withheld his terminal benefits. Contending that recovery cannot be effected from the aforesaid terminal benefits, he filed this writ petition, seeking to quash Ext.P5. There is a further prayer for disbursement of the amount withheld. 2. While it is the case of the petitioner that he has not executed any consent in terms of Ruling No.1 of Note 3 to Rule 3 of Part III KSR, the official respondents have not filed any counter affidavit. However, the 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit and in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated thus:- “ 4. It can be seen from the records regularly and properly maintained by the bank that the petitioner has availed a loan of `29,000/- as principal borrower as early as on 30.3.1995. He has agreed to repay the said amount in 60 monthly instalments. The balance amount due on this loan account as on 18.7.2001 is `21,953/-. The petitioner has also availed a short term loan of `8000/- on 30.3.1995 agreeing to repay the same in 12 monthly instalments. An amount of `4,065/- is due on this account as on 18.7.001. Apart from this the petitioner has also stood as surety to the 4th respondent for an amount of `38,000/- sanctioned on 30.3.1995. The balance due on this account as on 18.7.2001 is `73,967/-. In this connection, I may be permitted to point out that the petitioner has executed a consent in terms of Ruling No.1 to Rule 3 of Part III KSR agreeing that the officer, disbursing the petitioner's DCRG, General Provident Fund, Family Benefit, such other amounts the Government may sanction to him or to his nominees, may make deductions to the extent of the amount due from him as surety to the 3rd respondent bank. In view of this categoric undertaking given by the petitioner it does not lie in his mouth to contend that he cannot be proceeded against for he amounts due fro him as surety for the loan availed by the 4th respondent. Out of `73,967/- due from the 4th respondent an amount of `20,691/- was received on 18.7.2001 and the balance due would come to `53,276/-. Similarly the petitioner has also stood as surety to the 5th respondent who has availed a loan of `23,500/- on 30.3.1995. The amount due on this loan account as on 18.7.2001 is `31,400/-. In respect of this loan also the petitioner has executed a consent unconditionally agreeing to withhold his entire pensionary benefits by the disbursing officer and he has further agreed that the amount so withheld can be p;aid over to the 3rd respondent bank. In this view of the matter there is absolutely no merit in the original petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.” 3. From the above, it is, therefore, evident that according to the 3rd respondent, while the petitioner has not executed any consent in so far as the loan availed of by him, he has executed consent in respect of the loans availed of by respondents 4 and 5 to which he is a surety. If that be so, respondents are at liberty to effect recovery from the terminal benefits to discharge the liability due from respondents 4 and 5 and the balance amount is liable to be disbursed to the petitioner. This factual assertion contained in the counter affidavit is not disputed by any reply affidavit. 4. In that view of the matter, I dispose of the original petition directing that it will be open to the first respondent to discharge the dues, if any, outstanding towards the loan availed of by respondents 4 and 5 from the 3rd respondent to which the petitioner is a surety, from out of the terminal benefits due to the petitioner and the balance amount available will be disbursed to the petitioner. This, the first respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/28.05 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````` O.P. No. 20127 of 2001 U ``````````````````````````````````````` J U D G M E N T 27th day of May, 2011