Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 15546
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ALEXANDER THOMAS, A. BADHARUDEEN, JJ
RAJANI.K – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
OP(KAT)/123/2021
SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ, KUM.A.ARUNA & KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
Liability against a retired employee cannot be enforced post the statutory time limit unless proper procedures under relevant laws are followed.
Headnote:
Liability - Employment Disputes - Kerala Service Rules - Sections 3, 4, 2(b) of Kerala Public Accountants Act - Summary: The court ruled on the improper fixation of liability by respondents on the petitioner, highlighting the breach of statutory procedure in KSR. It reinforced the requirement of a reasonable opportunity of being heard and application of the Kerala Public Accountants Act only when conditions are met.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the impugned liability certificate issued by the respondents after her retirement, claiming it was illegal and not finalized within the mandatory three-year limit set by KSR. The Tribunal agreed, finding the liability imposed on the petitioner without due process.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal emphasized the illegality of the liability certificate due to its issuance beyond the prescribed three years and lack of a reasonable hearing for the petitioner. The court noted the need for statutory compliance before imposing any liability.
Issues: Whether the liability imposed on the petitioner was lawful given that it was issued after the three-year limit and without a fair hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that any liability fixation must comply with the statutory procedure under KSR and that without proper procedures being followed, any imposed liability is invalid.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal's order to release the full DCRG amount was upheld.
JUDGMENT
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in the W.P(C) in disbursing the full DCRG amount due to the petitioner on the ground of liabilities alleged against her, the original applicant had approached the Tribunal by filing the instant O.A (Ekm) No.692 of 2020, with the following reliefs [See page No.26 of the page book of the :
O.P(KAT)]
“i. Call for all the records leading to Annexure A1 and declare that Annexure A1 as bad in law and quash Annexure A1.
ii. Direct the respondents to exonerate the applicant from the liability and to release the DCRG amount forfeited by them.
iii. To allow such other relief that this Honourable Tribunal deem fit and proper and allow the costs.”
2. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned Ext.P7 final order dated 25-09-2020 in O.A(Ekm) No.692 of 2020 with a specific finding that the alleged liability amount of Rs.40,07,840/- sought to be finalized and fastened against the original applicant in terms of the impugned Annexure A1 liability certificate dated 11-12-2017, is illegal and ultra vires for the simple reason that the same has been issued much beyond the three years outer time limit mandated under Note 3 to Rule 3 Part III of KSR. That apart, it appears that the original applicant was not given reasonable opportunity of being heard before the decision to fix liability as referred to in Annexure A1. Accordingly, the Tribunal has directed that the respondents in the O.A should immediately release the full amount of DCRG due to the applicant within two months. However, the Tribunal has made an observation that the quashment of the impugned Annexure A1 liability certificate will not affect, if any, of the respondents in the O.A to proceed against the original applicant in accordance with law. Citing the said liberty, the Government has now issued Ext.P8 G.O(Rt.) No.205/ 2021/TAXES dated 13-03-2021, whereby it has been ordered that the liability to the tune of Rs.40,44,053/- in relation to the very same transaction in question, should be realized from the original applicant by way of revenue recovery proceedings.
3. The original applicant has taken up a plea that the Tribunal should not have given liberty to the respondents in the O.A to proceed as against the original applicant for recovery of the alleged liability and that the action of the Government in unilaterally seeking to fasten the liability and recover the same through revenue recovery proceedings in terms of Ext.P8 is illegal and ultra vires.
Further that the Tribunal should have adjudicated the specific plea of the petitioner that since two fair values were fixed for the same class of property at the relevant time, the original applicant cannot be said to be made liable for any of the actions in relation to the transactions relating to the registration of sale deeds, as admittedly the valuation was done on the basis of one such fair value amount, etc. It is on this pleas that the original applicant has chosen to file the instant original petition so as to challenge Ext.P7 final order of the Tribunal to the limited extent it has given liberty to the respondent in the O.A and also for seeking of quashment of Ext.P8 G.O dated 13-03-2021, etc.
4. Heard Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned Advocate instructed and assisted by Sri.Varun C.Vijay, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the O.P(KAT)/sole applicant in O.A before the Tribunal and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents in the O.P(KAT)/respondents in the O.A.
5. A brief recital to the factual aspects in this case may be necessary: The petitioner/original applicant had retired from service of the Registration Department on 30-11-2012 while holding the post of Sub Registrar. Long after the expiry of the outer time limit of three years mandated in Note 3 to Rule 3 Part III of KSR for finalization and fixation of liabilities for recovery from the DCRG, etc, R-3
