The main legal point established in the judgment is that a retired public accountant can be proceeded against under the Public Accountants Act, and the legality of proceedings initiated against the petitioner was upheld by the court.

K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.

The petitioner retired while working as Assistant Settlement Officer on SO. 11.1992. It is a post equivalent to the cadre of Deputy Collector. Subsequent to the retirement, proceedings were initiated against him both under the Public Accountants Act, 1963 and under R.3 Part III KSR. The former was to recover the amount which fell in his custody and was allegedly misappropriated by him. The latter was, on that reason, to reduce the pension. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging those proceedings initiated respectively as per Exts. P4 and P5. He also seeks a direction to the respondents not to enforce Exts. P4 and P5.

2. Exhibit P4 was issued as already mentioned above invoking the provisions of S.3(1) of the Kerala Public Accountants Act, J963 by the District Collector. Ext. P5 is issued by the Commissioner and Secretary of the Revenue Department of the Government.

3. Relying on the decision in Padmanabha Iyer v. State of Kerala (1974 KLT 556), the petitioner contends that Ext. P4 is illegal in so far as it did not contain the minimum necessary details to defend it. The Collector was exercising quasi judicial power in fastening a liability on the petitioner and therefore, details ought to have been included in Ext. P4. It is also contended by the counsel that by Ext. P4 the Collector had already found him guilty and fastened him with the liability of a huge amount mentioned therein. Therefore, an enquiry should have been held even before such alleged provisional conclusion as contained in Ext. P4. It is also contended by the counsel that in terms of S.3(1) of the Act, a detailed statement of liability ought to have been drawn up by the Collector and served on the petitioner. In so far as the Collector did not do so Ext. P4 is illegal and violative of the provisions of S.3(1) of the Act. It is further contended relying on the decision reported in Paramu Pillai v. District Collector (1989 (1) KLT 224) that if loss is caused by the government servant by negligence or by misconduct otherwise than in respect of monies or securities, the Collector cannot resort to the proceedings under S.3(1) of the Public Accountants Act. Government should resort to the proceedings under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & appeal) Rules and not under the Public Accountants Act. Counsel contends that all kinds of loss allegedly caused by Government servant cannot be recovered resorting to the Public Accountants Act. On that count also, the counsel for the petitioner assails Ext. P4.

4. There is no case for the petitioner that he is not a public accountant. According to him, he was employed as an Assistant Settlement Officer, at the time of retirement. In paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent it is specifically averred that the petitioner was "a Public accountant according to the definition in S.2(b) of the Kerala Public Accountants Act, 1963. The petitioner was the head of office who was entrusted with the receipt, custody, possession and control of all Government money transacted in the office of the Assistant Settlement Officer". Thus, the petitioner was a public accountant in terms of the definition contained in the Act. So, he can be proceeded under the Public Accountants Act. Before such proceedings are initiated, it is incumbent on the Collector or other appropriate authority to draw up a statement of the particulars of the claim against the public accountant. In this case, the Collector himself has initiated the proceedings. So, a statement has to be drawn up by the Collector under sub-s.(1). Sub-s.(1) of S.3 of the Kerala Public Accountants Act does not make it mandatory to serve the statement on the public accountant against whom proceedings are initiated. On the other hand, sub-s.(2) is clear that the Collector shall by writing under his official seal and signature serve a notice of demand on the public accountant in the same manner as summo