K.A. Rasheed vs Kerala State Electricity Board and The Deputy Chief Engineer

Antony Dominic, J.—In this writ petition, Petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order calling upon the Petitioner to show cause why an amount of Rs. 2,24,047/= fixed as his liability shall not be recovered from him.

According to the Petitioner, while working as Assistant Engineer, he was issued Ext.P1 notice on the allegation that loss was sustained by the Board in connection with the renovation works at Pallivasal, Sengulam and Panniar power houses. It is stated that on receipt of Ext.P1, Petitioner submitted Ext.P2 representation requesting for details. It is stated that thereupon he was issued Ext.P3 allowing him to verify the documents in the office of the second Respondent. He was also informed that further recovery will be at the rate of Rs. 5,000/= per month effected from his salary from March, 2005 onwards. It was thereupon that this writ petition was filed challenging the recovery proceedings.

In the counter affidavit filed what is stated by the Respondents is that the Petitioner was also involved in the renovation works at Pallivasal, Sengulam and Palliyar power houses. It is stated that there were several complaints about the corrupt practices in connection with the renovation works and that the Vigilance Wing of the Board identified the Petitioner also as one of the accused involved in the above malpractices. It is stated that the Chief Engineer conducted a detailed enquiry into the works executed and submitted a report quantifying the loss caused on account of the misconducts committed by the officers. According to the Respondents, individual liability of the Petitioner was quantified at Rs. 2.24,047/= and that it was in order to realise the said amount that Ext.R2(a) notice was issued. It is stated that in reply, Petitioner submitted Ext.P2 and that his grievance was that, liability has been fixed without notice to him. Therefore, he was allowed to verify the documents. It is stated that since amount was huge and as recovery was possible only in installments, it was decided to proceed with the recovery and that the Petitioner was intimated the same by Ext.P3.

Heard learned Counsel on both sides. Admittedly the enquiry on the basis of which the proceedings were initiated were held without notice to the Petitioner. The liability also was quantified without notice to him. It was therefore that when the Petitioner submitted Ext.P2 objection on Ext.P1, he was given an opportunity to verify the documents by issuing Ext.P3. Therefore even now liability has not been quantified with notice or hearing the Petitioner. In spite of the above, in Ext.P3 the Respondents informed the Petitioner that the amount due will be recovered in installments. In my view until the liability is fixed with notice to the Petitioner, the Respondents cannot proceed on the basis that amounts are due from him. Therefore the proposal in Ext.P3 to recover the amount at this stage is premature. In that view of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:

That the second Respondent will issue a fresh notice to the Petitioner disclosing the materials on the basis of which recovery is proposed to be effected from the Petitioner and permitting him to verify the documents. On issuance of such notice, the Petitioner will be permitted to furnish his reply and if request is made, he will also be permitted to peruse the documents relied on against him. Once that process is completed, after hearing the Petitioner and considering the objection raised, the second Respondent will pass fresh orders in the matter. Until the matter is reconsidered as directed above, the recovery proposed on the Petitioner shall not be continued.

The writ petition is disposed of.