IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 OP.No. 2531 of 1999(B) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- U. KANDRU, LAKSHMI NAVAS, MADAMBI LANE, THRISSUR-4. BY ADV. SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN SMT.PRASANNA H.KAMATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, OLAVAKKODE CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. 4. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, SPECIAL, PALGHAT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPIN DAS. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 2531/1999. ------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 27-9-1984. EXT.P2 APPEAL DT. 14-7-1987. EXT.P3 ORDER DT. 8-12-1998. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 2531 of 1999 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 17th February, 2009. J U D G M E N T This original petition was earlier heard and judgment was delivered on 25-11-2005. The said judgment reads thus: “The petitioner was a Range Officer who retired from service on 31-5-1990. The subject matter of this original petition is recovery of certain amounts fixed as liability on him consequent on disallowance of certain vouchers submitted by him. Initially Rs.42,359.24 was originally fixed as the amount of disallowance. Later, after adjusting certain amounts found to be admissible, the balance was fixed at Rs.35,953.24. This disallowance was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the Conservator of Forests, Olavakkod Circle, Palakkad. That ended in Ext. P3 order. In Ext. P3 order, the Conservator of Forests further reduced the amount by Rs.3,073. The balance would come to Rs.32,880.24, which is now fixed as the liability to be recovered from the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that he is not liable to pay these amounts, since the disallowance of his vouchers are not correct and legal. In so far as the liability in respect of the disallowance of vouchers submitted by the petitioner is concerned, the same can be decided only on ascertainment of facts by adducing evidence, which this Court cannot do exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, on a perusal of the impugned order, I am not in a position to conclude that the decision is perverse or arbitrary. As such, the contention of the petitioner in that regard cannot be accepted. 2. The petitioner has got another contention that towards the said liability, he has been making payments in monthly instalments of Rs.500/- from his salary from December, 1985 onwards, the total of which would come to Rs.27,000/-. The petitioner claims that the said amount has not been adjusted against the said amount of Rs. 32,880.24. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent also, the fact of payment of Rs.500/- per month from the petitioner's salary is admitted. In so far as the averment of the petitioner that he has been paying at the rate of Rs. 500/- from December, 1985 onwards has not been controverted, it has to be accepted as correct. If that be so, the petitioner is entitled to have the said amount adjusted against the liability due as per Ext. P3 order. In the above circumstances, there shall be a direction to the respondents to adjust the amount of Rs.27,000/- from the amount said to be recovered from the petitioner as per Ext. P3 and only the balance amount shall be recovered. With the above direction, the original petition is disposed of. No costs.” O.P. No. 2531/1999 -: 2 :- Subsequently, the State filed a review petition raising the specific contention that the amount recovered from the petitioner was only Rs.16,500/- and not Rs. 27,000/-. I allowed the review petition and posted the original petition for re-hearing. It is pursuant thereto, this original petition is coming up for hearing. 2. Now the only question which I am inclined to consider is as to what is the amount recovered from the petitioner by way of deduction from salary in so far as there is no reason to deviate from the other findings in the judgment dated 25-11-2005, which are hereby confirmed. Neither side has placed any material before me in that regard. Therefore, the 2nd respondent shall consider the question as to what is the amount actually recovered from the petitioner by deduction from his salary, after issuing notice to the petitioner and hearing him. This shall be done as early as possible, at any rate, within two months. The amount recovered from the salary of the petitioner shall be adjusted against the liability due from the petitioner. The original petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/