IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2008 / 6TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 27169 of 2005(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SRI.M.A.GIRIDHAR, S/O.LATE ANANDAKRISHNAN, AGED 45 YEARS, HOUSE NO.28/171 A, NELLIKODE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.M.K.SUMOD SRI.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.Y.IRRIGATION PROJECTION DIVISION, PERAMBRA, CALICUT. 2. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NELLIKODE VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF ANANDAKRISHNAN. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.8.2005 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 25.8.2005 EXT.P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY EXE. ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPT., PERAMBRA DATED 25.8.2005 EXT.P4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 31.8.2005 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(Rt) NO.1106/2001/IRRN. DATED 27.10.2001 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 27169 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of alleged loss caused by his deceased father while in service as Exe. Engineer, PWD. There is no need for this Court to go into the question as to whether allegations against the deceased father of the petitioner are right or Government is justified in trying to recover the amount because demand has to be cancelled on the ground of inordinate delay alone. Petitioner's father retired in the year 1982 and died on 12.4.2000. The irregularity which led to demand against the petitioner's father obviously took place while he was in service and enquiry was commenced while he was in service. Strangely memo of charges was stated to be issued on 12.4.1985 which according to petitioner was served on others involved along with petitioner's father. In any case, I do not think petitioner or other legal heirs will be in a position to defend the charges or the demand against deceased person as they are not aware of the basis of the demand against the deceased. According to the petitioner, final adjudication order determining the liability of the deceased was admittedly issued on 27.10.2001. 2 Government Pleader also submitted that this is only proceeding issued by the Government for recovery from the assets of the deceased. In any case, it is conceded that neither enquiry nor adjudication was completed during the service of the delinquent officer or within a reasonable time from the date of his retirement. This is a classic example of the irresponsible manner in which higher authorities in Government conduct themselves. I am sure this ineffective action against delinquent officer will only be an encouragement to those in serive to do irregular things. In view of the inordinate delay in completing proceedings, the demand against the petitioner and other legal heirs for recovery of arrears claimed against the deceased, who retired 26 years back and died 8 years back are quashed. However, it would be open to the Government to proceed for recovery against those persons who were entrusted with enquiry and adjudication of liability as they are the persons responsible for the loss caused to the Govt. W.P. is allowed to the extent indicated above. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3