IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 903 of 2004(G) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------ K.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, ASSISTANT DIARY DIRECTOR (RETIRED), CHERUVALLIL, ANDOOR, MARANGATTUPILLY P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.B.PREMACHANDRAN SRI.P.K.SIVADASAN NAIR SRI.S.MADHAVAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DIRECTOR, DIARY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS; EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E1/8459/98, DATED 1-12.99 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATDED 19.9.2003 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 903 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 whereunder the petitioner along with others were called upon to pay an amount Rs. 3952/- towards cost of an article lost from the Dairy at Marangattuppally. It is seen from Ext.P1 that the article was purchased in the Dairy on 24.2.1987. However, the loss was noticed on 13.3.1992 and 14.3.1992. Admittedly there is no proof that petitioner is involved in the loss caused to the organisation. However, petitioner is held responsible only because the Dairy at Marangattupilly was during the relevant period under the control of the petitioner, who was Assistant Dairy Director at Kottayam. Lapse if any on the part of the petitioner is petitioner's failure to oversee handing over of charge by one to the other in the Dairy at Marangattupilly where an inventory should have been prepared about the articles. However, nothing is said as to whether superior officer should be held responsible for the loss caused by the officer in charge of the Dairy. As 2 many as five persons are identified as liable for the loss of article which obviously means that the department has not traced as to who is liable or during whose period article is lost. No show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and no adjudication order was issued before serving Ext.P1. The incident happened some time between 1987 and 1992 and having regard to the amount involved, I do not find any justification to order another enquiry because if any such enquiry is ordered, it will lead to further loss to the Government. O.P. is accordingly allowed quashing the demand as against the petitioner. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3