Sajeevan K.K vs Executive Engineer

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 28, 2024

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1299049

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1299049
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.
Decided On: Feb 28, 2024
Case Number: WP(C)/16344/2013

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sajeevan K.K

Respondent

Executive Engineer

Excerpt

.....money on the pretext that some other work had been completed. it is submitted that it is in such circumstances that ext.p1 was issued to recover the amount of loss caused to the government from the bill of the petitioner. it is submitted that the fact that the bill from which the amount was recovered was in respect of another work is no ground to hold that the proceedings are illegal and unsustainable in law. however, it is fairly conceded that ext.p1 was not preceded by any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. it is submitted that the amount of rs.1,50,137/- has already been recovered from the bill of the petitioner.3. having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner andthe learned government pleader, i am of the view that ext.p1 is to be treated only as a show cause notice and the question as to whether any amount is to be recovered from the petitioner has to be adjudicated by the 1st respondent after affording to the petitioner anw.p.(c)no.16344/2013 4 opportunity of being heard and after affording to him an opportunity of filing objections to ext.p1. it will be open to the petitioner to show that the findings in ext.r1(c) are incorrect and the petitioner had not been paid any amount but for the work actually done by him. to enable reconsideration of the matter by the 1 st respondent, it is directed that, on the petitioner filing his objections to ext.p1 (which shall be treated as a show cause notice), the matter shall be adjudicated by the 1st respondent considering objections, if any, filed by the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. since the amount has already been recovered from the petitioner, it is further directed that if the 1st respondent were to find that the amounts were not actually recoverable from the petitioner, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner. the 1 st respondent shall endeavour to complete the proceedings as above within a period of three months from the date of receipt of.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 16344 OF 2013 PETITIONER/S: SAJEEVAN K.K S/O. GOVINDAN, 'ANJANAM', P.O. KEEZHATTUR, VIA. MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670612. BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL RESPONDENT/S: 1 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD, ROADS DIVISION, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD, ROADS SUB DIVISION, MANANTHAVADI.P.O. 3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER OTHER PRESENT: SRI.VENUGOPAL V -GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.16344/2013 2

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a P.W.D. Contractor. He has approached this Court being aggrieved by the recovery of a sum of Rs.1,50,137/- from the amounts payable to the petitioner for the work done by him in

respect of 'Thavinjal-Valad-Kunhome Road'. According to the petitioner, after he had completed the work and submitted his final bill, the 1st respondent intimated to the petitioner that he is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,137/- which is stated to be on account of a work completed by the petitioner nearly four years ago and on the ground of certain recommendations made by the Vigilance and Anti

Corruption Bureau. It is submitted that the decision to impose fine/penalty of Rs.1,50,137/- is clearly illegal as the petitioner has not even been put on notice regarding the said proposal. It is submitted that there cannot be a unilateral determination of liability of the petitioner based on the recommendations of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau.

2. The learned Government Pleader refers to the counter

affidavit as well as to the additional counter affidavit filed by the 1 st respondent before this Court and also to the report of the Vigilance Anti Corruption Bureau which is on record as Ext.R1(c) along with

W.P.(C)No.16344/2013 3 the additional counter affidavit dated 7.2.2014 to contend that the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau found that the petitioner in connivance with certain officials of P.W.D. had been awarded a work which had already been awarded earlier and on the pretext that it was urgent work, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid. It is pointed out that, going by Ext.R1(c), only the first work had been completed and the second work was only an attempt to defraud the exchequer of money on the pretext that some other work had been completed. It is submitted that it is in such circumstances that Ext.P1 was issued to recover the amount of loss caused to the Government from the bill of the petitioner. It is submitted that the fact that the bill from which the amount was recovered was in respect of another work is no ground to hold that the proceedings are illegal and unsustainable in law. However, it is fairly conceded that Ext.P1 was not preceded by any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is submitted that the amount of Rs.1,50,137/- has already been recovered from the bill of the petitioner.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that Ext.P1 is to be treated only as a show cause notice and the question as to whether any amount is to be recovered from the petitioner has to be adjudicated by the 1st respondent after affording to the petitioner an

W.P.(C)No.16344/2013 4 opportunity of being heard and after affording to him an opportunity of filing objections to Ext.P1. It will be open to the petitioner to show that the findings in Ext.R1(c) are incorrect and the petitioner had not been paid any amount but for the work actually done by him. To enable reconsideration of the matter by the 1 st respondent, it is directed that, on the petitioner filing his objections to Ext.P1 (which shall be treated as a show cause notice), the matter shall be adjudicated by the 1st respondent considering objections, if any, filed by the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Since the amount has already been recovered from the petitioner, it is further directed that if the 1st respondent were to find that the amounts were not actually recoverable from the petitioner, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner. The 1 st respondent shall endeavour to complete the proceedings as above within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

judgment.

GOPINATH P. JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.16344/2013 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16344/2013 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATYED 1- 6-13 OF TRHE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS ANNEXURE R1(a): COPY OF MEMO OF CHARGES NO.1279/F3/13/PWD DATED 14.03.2013. ANNEXURE R1(b): TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.E11/(VE12) 10 WYD) 18510 ANNEURE R1(C): COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 29.10.2012.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2024 Same Parties Sajeevan K.K vs Executive Engineer Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.