IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31387 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. V.V.OUSEPH, S/O. VAREED VALLOORAN AGED 73 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINER (RETIRED) PUBLIC DEPARTMENT (RESIDING AT VALLOORAN HOUSE VELLARAPPALLY SOUTH, ERNAKULAM-683580) 2. P.K.APPUNNY S/O. P.A.KITTAN, AGED 72 YEARS, EXECUTIVE ENGINER (RETIRED) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PERINGATHARAYIL PERINJANAM, THRISSUR-680686. 3. K.G.ACHUTHAN S/O. K.N.GOVINDAN AGED 65 YEARS, EXECUTIVE ENGIEER (RETIRED) PUBLIC WORKS EPARTMENT KULANGARA HOUSE MANNUTHY THRISSUR-680651. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 31387 OF 2009 (P) ===================== Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are retired Engineers of PWD, having retired in the years 1991, 1992 and 1999 respectively. By Ext.P5 order dated 1/6/2009, liability has been fastened on the petitioners and it is ordered that the same shall be recovered by filing Civil Suit against the petitioners. It is challenging this order the writ petition is filed. 2. It is pointed out that another person, who is also affected by Ext.P5, had challenged the said order by filing WP(C) No.28301/09. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment dated 8th October, 2009, in which Ext.P5 herein has been referred to as Ext.P4. The directions issued are contained in para 4 of the judgment, which is extracted below for reference: 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 WPC 31387/09 :2 : plea for recovery as also defend any action for recovery of any damages from the petitioner. The finding in Ext.P4, 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. In view of the fact that the order challenged in that writ petition is the one challenged in this writ petition, this writ petition is also disposed of directing that the petitioners herein will also be entitled to the benefit of the directions in para 4 of the judgment extracted above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp