High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-01-20Writ petition allowed; liability certificates s...

P.A. Augustine v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 18615 of 2005 (N)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2016-01-20
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is allowed. Ext.R2(a) is set aside. The petitioner is to be paid the entire DCRG withheld by the Board with 6% interest from the date of retirement, to be paid within three months from the receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. No costs.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; liability certificates set aside; DCRG to be paid with interest

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P.A. Augustine, Retired Assistant Executive Engineer (K.S.E.B.)

Respondents

Kerala State Electricity Board, represented by its Secretary, Vaidhyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-4
Chief Engineer (HRM), Kerala State Electricity Board, Vaidhyuthi Bhavan Pattom, Trivandrum-4
Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Kerala State Electricity Board, Ernakulam
Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Kerala State Electricity Board, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• N. Sukumaran
• S. Shyam

Counsels for Respondents

• Asok M. Cheriyan, SC, KSEB
• Pulikool Abubacker, SC, KSEB
• Jose J. Matheikel, SC, KSEB

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, P.A. Augustine, a retired Assistant Executive Engineer (K.S.E.B.), challenges the withholding of his DCRG on account of liability certificates issued by the Kerala State Electricity Board. He was issued Ext.P1 on 11.04.1994 as a show-cause notice alleging substantial negative figures in the Material At Sight Account (MASA) of the Electrical Major Section at Palarivattom, where he had charge, and Ext.P1 demanded explanation why Rs. 2,16,082 should not be recoverable as a personal liability. The petitioner replied via Ext.P2, but the file went to the Deputy Chief Engineer after the Executive Engineer found no clear competency to fix liability. In Ext.P3, the 3rd respondent held that it was doubtful to fix liability on the petitioner and that recovering from salary could amount to punishment, a course not permissible for an officer below Deputy Chief Engineer; after Ext.P3 no further action was taken. After retirement (2003), Ext.P5 alleged additional liabilities including Rs.28,002 for a 1992 incident, plus other items relating to 1992 and 1994-95, none of which were properly quantified with petitioner’s participation. Respondents relied on Ext.R2 series to justify liability, but Kerala Service Rules Note 3 to Rule 3 restrict post‑retirement liability to incidents four years prior to retirement; these liabilities exceed the permitted period. The court set aside Ext.R2(a) and directed payment of the full DCRG with 6% interest from retirement within three months, citing Shiv Dass v. Union of India (2007) (9) SCC 274. Petitioner’s writ petition allowed. No costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Service Rules, Note 3 to Rule 3

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the liability determined against him post-retirement, especially for periods long past and without a proper hearing, violates the Kerala Service Rules and the principle that liability after retirement is limited to incidents four years prior to retirement. Ext.P3 had already found it doubtful to fix liability and warned against punishing actions through salary deduction, and the absence of a competent authority to fix liability shows the challenge to Ext.R2(a). The petitioner seeks setting aside Ext.R2(a) and payment of the entire DCRG with interest from retirement, asserting that the Board’s reliance on late liability certificates is improper.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the liability certificates (Ext.R2 series) justify deductions from DCRG and that the Board acted within the framework of service rules and the liability certificates. They rely on the periodical liabilities (1992-1994-95) and post-retirement adjustments, arguing that the amounts were properly identified and recorded, and the withholding was legally permissible despite the lack of prior hearing in some instances.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shiv Dass v. Union of India and others	2007 (9) SCC 274	Positive	Cited as authority for awarding interest on DCRG from the date of retirement; used to justify payment with interest in favor of the petitioner.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against P.A. Augustine v. Kerala State Electricity Board and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/30TH POUSHA, 1937** **WP(C).No. 18615 of 2005 (N)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): --------------** **P.A.AUGUSTINE, RETIRED ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (K.S.E.BOARD) PULLAN HOUSE, NEDUNGAD, NAYARAMPALAM ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.N.SUKUMARAN SRI.S.SHYAM** **RESPONDENT(S): --------------** **1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM TRIVANDRUM-4.** **2. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM-4.** **3. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ERNAKULAM.** **4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KEALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ERNAKULAM.** **R1 TO 4 BY ADVS. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 18615 of 2005 (N)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS** **EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 11.4.1994** **EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P1 ON 11.4.1995** **EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDNET TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17.6.96.** **EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 8.12.2003** **EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 17.11.2003** **EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P5 DATED 29.11.2003** **EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 18.12.2003** **EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 3.6.2005** **EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 3.6.2005** **EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER ENCLOSING EXTS.P8 AND P9 DATED 3.6.2005** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS** **EXT.R2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.05.2005** **EXT.R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED LIABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 30.06.2005 EXT.R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.08.1993 EXT.R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03.02.1995 EXT.R2(D) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.2.1995 EXT.R2(E) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.05.2003 EXT.R2(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE PARAGRAPH WISE COMMENTS ALONG WITH THE DETAILS OF STOCK.** **EXT.R2(G) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.10.2003 OF THE REGIONAL AUDIT OFFICER.** **/TRUE COPY/** **P. A. TO JUDGE** **Pn** **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------W.P(C). No.18615 of 2005-N ---------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of January, 2016** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is aggrieved with the withholding of his DCRG, which has been made purportedly by reason of the Liability Certificate issued at Exts.R2 & R2(a). The petitioner was issued with Ext.P1 notice dated 11.04.1994, intimating him about some negative figures in materials in huge quantity on verification of the 'Material At Sight Account' (MASA). of the Electrical Major Section, Palarivattom, wherein he was holding charge. Ext.P1 was a show-cause notice seeking _W.P(C). No.18615 of 2005-N_ **2** explanation as to why Rs.2,16,082/- should not be mulcted as personal liability against the petitioner. The petitioner, immediately thereafter, preferred Ext.P2 explanation. The Executive Engineer being not competent to cast any liability, the files were forwarded to the Deputy Chief Engineer, the 3[rd] respondent. 2. The 3[rd] respondent, by Ext.P3, categorically found that it is doubtful that any liability could be fixed on the petitioner, on the given set of facts and allegations. It was also found that the recovery from salary would result in pecuniary loss and tantamount to inflicting punishment, which could not be done by any Officer below the rank of a Deputy Chief Engineer. After Ext.P3, nothing further was done. _W.P(C). No.18615 of 2005-N_ **3** 3. The petitioner retired on 31.05.2003. After which, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P5, alleging a liability of Rs.28,002/- for reason of failure in replacing a meter, pertaining to a particular consumer number. The incident is said to be one relating prior to 1992 and the liability has also been fixed after the retirement of the petitioner, without any prior notice or a proper enquiry to quantify the amounts, with due participation of the employee. 4. The Liability Certificate itself is produced by the respondent as Ext.R2(a). The liability at Serial No.1 pertains to MASA for 4/93, 5/93 and 6/93, which is the very same issue considered in Ext.P3 dated 17.06.1996, and which proceedings were closed. The Board _W.P(C). No.18615 of 2005-N_ **4** relies on Ext.R2(b) dated 03.02.1995 and Ext.R2(c) dated 15.02.1995 to uphold the said liability incurred in the year 1993. When the Deputy Chief Engineer, who is the competent authority, has specifically closed the issue at Ext.P3, there could no liability fixed on the petitioner with respect to the notice issued at Ext.P1, which liability is sought to be refixed and reiterated in Exts.R2(b) & R2(c). 5. The next liability indicated at Serial No.2 is with respect to an amount of Rs.28,002/-, which is mulcted on the petitioner by Ext.P5, after the retirement of the petitioner. This also relates to the year 1992. The third liability fixed is with respect to excess pay drawn, that too in the period 19941995. A further liability of Rs.560/- is fixed, _W.P(C). No.18615 of 2005-N_ **5** which is not substantiated by the Board in its Counter Affidavit. 6. The KSEB has adopted the Kerala Service Rules and Note 3 to Rule 3, specifically speaks of fixing of liability after retirement confined to incidents, which occurred four years prior to the retirement of the employee. Here, as has been noticed above, all the liabilities were sought to be mulcted, after the retirement, and that too for periods prior to almost ten years from the date of retirement. Further no quantification of liability is made in a proceeding where the petitioner/employee was participated. In such circumstance, Ext.R2(a) has to be set aside. The petitioner would be paid the entire DCRG withheld by the Board with 6% _W.P(C). No.18615 of 2005-N_ **6** interest from the date of retirement of the petitioner, as has been found in **Shiv Dass v. Union of India and others [2007 (9) SCC 274]** , which shall be done within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Sd/- ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.** //True Copy// P.A. to Judge. sp/21/01/16