IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 16TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 25910 of 2006(S) -------------------------- OA.273/2005 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.THANKAMMA, SENIOR STORE KEEPER(RETIRED 38/209, RAJ BHAVAN, KARSHAKA ROAD, KOCHI-682 016. BY ADV. SRI.KMV.PANDALAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES, NAUTICAL AND ENGINEERING TRAINING, DEWAN'S ROAD, COCHIN-682 016. 3. STORE OFFICER, CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES, NAUTICAL AND ENGINEERING TRAINING, DEWAN'S ROAD, COCHIN- 682 016. . SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASSISTANT SG THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/02/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 25910/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE STOCK REGISTER NO.SR 21 (CONSUMABLE STORE REGISTER) EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE PETITIONER DATED 11.04.1997. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 28.04.1997 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 29.04.1997 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE HANDING OVER NOTE TYPED BY SRI.LAKSHMANAN IN FORM SR 21. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE PETITIONER DATED 27.08.1997. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 29.09.1997 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.10.1997 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 15.10.1997 FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 3.11.1997. EXT.P11 - TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED REPLY DATED 6.11.1997 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P12 - TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED 10.11.1997 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P13 - TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DATED 24.11.1997 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P14 - TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 15.12.1997 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P15 - TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 19.12.1997 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P16 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.12.1997 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P17 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN O.A. NO.243/98 DATED 30.08.2000. EXT.P18 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7.11.2000. EXT.P19 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.02.2005 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP 13295/2001. EXT.P20 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION OA NO.273/2005 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED NIL. WPC 25910/2006 EXT.P21 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 26.08.2005. EXT.P22 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2005 IN O.A. 273/2005 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R1 - TRUE COPY OF THE DIAGRAM OF THE G.LINK ASSEMBLY DT. NIL. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 25910 OF 2006-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 5th February, 2009. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The applicant in O.A.No.273/2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench is the writ petitioner. The respondents herein were the respondents in that O.A. The O.A was filed, challenging Annexures-A8 and A18 orders. The said orders are produced as Exts.P8 and P18 in this writ petition. Ext.P8 is a recovery order, directing to recover an amount of Rs.35,145/- from the petitioner. The reason for the recovery is shortage of items found while handing over charge to her successor Store Keeper on 30.4.1997. The said order was issued only on 9.10.1997, after the retirement of the petitioner on 31.8.1997. Ext.P18 is the order passed by the Director of the petitioner's Institute, after affording an opportunity of being heard to her and also examining her contentions, as directed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.No. 243/1998 dated 30.08.2000. By the said order, the liability was reduced to Rs.33,233/-. The petitioner challenged those orders before the C.A.T on various grounds. But, the Tribunal, after hearing both sides, dismissed the WPC 25910/2006 2 application by Ext.P22 order. This Writ Petition is filed, challenging Exts.P8, P18 and P22. 2. The C.A.T., as per Ext.P22, found that in view of Annexure-A5, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P5 in this writ petition, the shortage under Serial Nos.25 and 26 therein is admitted by the petitioner. With the above shortage, the petitioner has handed over charge on 29.4.1997 and Sri.K.Lakshmanan has taken over charge on 30.4.1997. The present case of the petitioner is that she was compelled to acknowledge the shortage of certain items as per Serial Nos.25 and 26 in Ext.P5. But, we notice that the said contention was raised by her for the first time in her explanation Ext.P11 submitted on 6.11.1997. So, the subsequent explanation regarding the entry in Ext.P5 lacks credence. Therefore, we think that the Tribunal has rightly proceeded on the footing that the petitioner was well aware of the shortage. So, the strenuous contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under threat and coercion the petitioner was compelled to acknowledge the shortage in Ext.P5, cannot be accepted. 3. The second point canvassed before us is that the shortages assessed and computed before the date of retirement alone could be recovered, irrespective of whether the recovery is under Rule 71 or Rule 73 of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules. But, in this case, we notice that there is WPC 25910/2006 3 admitted shortage of certain items, though the petitioner would turn around and dispute the admission made by her. We have already rejected as untenable the dispute raised by the petitioner against the shortage. The shortage has caused loss of some amount to the Government. The petitioner does not dispute the quantum of loss. If that be so, even in the absence of any rule, the Government should be conceded authority to recover the amount from the amounts payable to the petitioner. That is exactly what is done in this case. Every creditor should be conceded freedom to adjust the amount of the debtor with him. In the absence of any dispute regarding the amount, in the sense that the cost of the missing items is something different from what is assessed, we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the C.A.T., exercising our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. nm/