Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58648
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
GEORGEKUTTY M.V. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 43870 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY, SMT.DIVYA CHANDRAN
For the Respondents: SRI.GEORGIE JOHNY, SC
A recovery order issued without a hearing violates natural justice principles.
Headnote:The petitioner challenges the recovery order dated 17.04.2024, asserting violations of natural justice and KSR rules. The court finds that without affording a hearing, recovery is impermissible under the cited case laws including State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih. The court consequently directs swift consideration of the petitioner's representation by the second respondent, ensuring due process within two months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner retired, seeks to contest recovery order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. past cases argue against recovery without hearing. (Para 3) |
| 3. court directs consideration of representation within two months. (Para 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of November, 2025 The petitioner had retired from service on 31.05.2024.
As evident from Ext.P2, the alleged irregularities happened almost 20 years ago. Moreover, Ext.P2 is issued without hearing the petitioner without seeking his explanation. It is issued in total violation of the principles of natural justice, contends the petitioner.
2. According to the petitioner, the liability now fixed is in total violation of the proviso to Rule 3 of Part III KSR. Going by the decisions inState of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [(2015) 4 SCC 334] , Union of India v. N.M.Raut [2024 KHC OnLine 6757] andJagdish Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar [2024 KHC OnLine 6422], no recovery is permissible against the petitioner. Now, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 before the 2nd respondent. No decision is taken on it by the 2nd respondent, contends the petitioner.
3. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court inJogeswar Sahoo v. District Judge, Cuttack [2025 KHC Online 6309] , wherein it was held that recovery is unsustainable, if no opportunity of hearing was afforded before issuing the recovery order. Counsel for the petitioner further relied on the judgment in State of Kerala and others v. Vinod Kumar C.R. [2020 (4) KLT 230] , in which a Division Bench of this Court has held that belated recovery and that too without giving an opportunity of hearing to the employee, will be inequitable.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is relating to the attempted recovery from the DCRG. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 representation before the 2nd respondent-Managing Director. Considering the facts of the case, I am of the view that the 2nd respondent shall consider Ext.P4 representation and take appropriate decision thereon expeditiously.
The writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of two months after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after adverting to the judgments in Vinod Kumar C.R. (supra) and Jogeswar Sahoo (supra). The petitioner shall serve copies of the afore judgments and a copy of the judgment in this writ petition on the 2nd respondent.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH JUDGE SR APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43870/2025 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E1-508/78 VOL.II DATED 17.06.2010 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H. SUB DIVISION, MUVATTUPUZHA.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.K.W.A/F4/AEE/1905 DATED 17.04.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE GRATUITY PAYMENT ORDER NO.20142 DATED 29.09.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
14.10.2025 ALONG WITH THE POSTAL RECEIPT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
