IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2849 of 2009(L)
1. K.VIJAYAN, THARAPPEL HOUSE, KANAKKARY.PO
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER,
3. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,AGRICULTURE
For Petitioner :SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :17/02/2009
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No. 2849 of 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 17th February,2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner retired from service of Agriculture
Department as a Principal Agriculture Officer on
30.4.2006. Pursuant to disciplinary action taken against
him and some others, Exhibit-P5 order has been passed
by the Government by which the Government finalised the
disciplinary proceedings against the accused officers by
awarding recovery of 80% of the total loss of Rs.1,58,990/-
from the DCRG of the petitioner and 10% of the loss
each from the pay and allowances of Sri. K.K. Chandran,
Deputy Director of Agriculture and Sri.Kurian Mathew,
Assistant Director of Agriculture.
2. In view of the disciplinary proceedings pending
against him so far the retirement benefits have not been
quantified and no order of sanction has been issued.
Petitioner on receipt of Exhibit-P5 has filed Exhibit P6
before the Agriculture Production Commissioner seeking
W.P ( C) No. 2849 of 2009
2
for a reconsideration of the matter. Petitioner has sought
cancellation of the order contending that there is no
dereliction of duties on his part and he has not caused any
loss to the Government.
3. Petitioner has a further contention that since
the disciplinary proceedings have been finalised after
retirement no punishment could have been imposed against
him and the order now passed is not pursuant to any
judicial proceedings also.
4. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to
consider and pass orders on Exhibit-P6 within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Second respondent
will see whether Exhibit-P6 is maintainable before him and
if it is not maintainable, the matter will have to be referred
to the Government treating it as a review under Rule 35 of
the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1960 and in that event the Government will
consider it on merits and pass orders thereon after
hearing him. Petitioner has got a contention that so far the
W.P ( C) No. 2849 of 2009
3
DCRG and other benefits have not been sanctioned to him.
It is pointed out that the admissible amount of DCRG could
be disbursed without any delay. Therefore, the 2nd
respondent will take appropriate action to sanction the
DCRG and other retirement benefits due to the petitioner
and the admissible amount will be disbursed to him without
further delay.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No. 2849 of 2009
4
W.P ( C) No. 2849 of 2009
5