IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 29708 of 2007(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ VARGHESE VARKEY, S/O.VARKEY, AGED 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT PARAKKAL HOUSE, MAITHRY LANE, KALOOR-KATHRIKADAVU ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN-17. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).11137/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C)s. 29708/2007 & 11137/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT Common issues arise for consideration in these cases. The allegations are also similar. Therefore, when Writ Petition No.11137/2008 came up for admission and it was pointed out that similar issue is pending before this Court in Writ Petition No.29708/2007, the latter writ petition was also called for. I have taken up for consideration Writ Petition No.29708/2007 by consent of parties and thereafter, I have proceeded to dispose of both the writ petitions. Petitioner in Writ Petition No.29708/2007 retried from service as early as on 31.7.1990 as Controller of Rationing in the Civil Supplies Department. He was issued Ext.P1 notice, on 30.7.2004 stating that he has caused a loss to the tune of Rs.1,018.80/- when he was holding additional charge of District Supply Officer, Trichur. Apparently, petitioner had held the charge as District Supply Officer only for 16 days. Petitioner gave a W.P.(C)s.29708/07 & 11137/08 2 reply to Ext.P1 vide Ext.P2. He did not thereafter, receive any communication, but was served with Ext.P3 notice requiring to remit an amount of Rs.1,019/- with 5% collection charges. This has been challenged in the writ petition. Ext.P1 notice seeking to recover a loss from the Government servant is issued about 14 years after retirement. Government is entitled to recover the loss that has been caused to it from a Government servant in terms of ruling 6 to Rule 116(5) of Part-III of K.S.R. Going by the said ruling, Government has to approach the Civil Court as such. In these circumstances Ext.P1 can only be treated as the Government’s own determination that there is a loss. But for actual recovery, there has to be an adjudication by the competent authority. In the result, writ petition is disposed of holding that if the Government proposes to recover any loss W.P.(C)s.29708/07 & 11137/08 3 from the petitioner, it shall be done only in terms of ruling 6 to Rule 116(5) of Part-III of K.S.R. Obviously, proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act cannot be enforced except in accordance with ruling 6 of Rule 116(5) of Part-III of the Kerala Service Rules. Writ Petition No.11137/2008. The discussion and observation made in relation to Writ Petition No.29708/2007 is applicable in the case of the petitioner herein also. But according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner was not even served with notice stating that a loss has been caused. Petitioner had retired from service as early as on 30.9.1992 and she has received the retirement benefits also. In these circumstances, it is declared that the loss, if any, caused by the petitioner, to the Government can be recovered only in accordance with ruling 6 to Rule 116(5) of Part-III of the Kerala Service Rules and the enforcement of the recovery proceedings, W.P.(C)s.29708/07 & 11137/08 4 as evidenced by Ext.P1, can only be subject to any decision that the Government may take in that regard. If any such proceedings are taken, all defences in law, including a plea of limitation will be available to the petitioner. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs