IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17229 of 2004(A)
1. VISWANATHAN K., S/O. KANNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD.
3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), ALATHUR.
4. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS,
5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS,
6. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
Dated :07/11/2008
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.
----------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.17229 OF 2004
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of November, 2008
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~
The petitioner retired from service on 31.3.1992 as the
Executive Officer of Kottopadam Grama Panchayat. While in
service, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and
two increments were barred as per the order of the Deputy
Director of Panchayat, Malappuram dated 2.7.1982. The
petitioner submits now after 12 years of retirement to realise
Rs.20,700/-, which is equivalent to six increments, steps are
being taken. Ext.P1 is the demand notice issued to him under
the Revenue Recovery Act, calling upon him to pay the said
amount. Ext.P2 is the representation filed by him before the
District Collector pointing out the injustice in recovering the
amount as per Ext.P1. Thereafter, this writ petition is filed
challenging Ext.P1. According to him the provisions of Kerala
Civil Services (CC&A) Rules do not permit recovery of 8
increments. The maximum penalty that can be imposed is only
bar of three increments, it is submitted.
W.P.(C) No.17229/2004 2
2. The respondents 1 and 4 have filed a counter affidavit
on 14.6.2007. As per the counter affidavit, the amount sought to
be recovered is the unsuffered value of his annual increments
barred, as a punishment for grave irregularities committed by
him. It is also submitted that the orders barring the increments
were issued as early as in 1979. But, because of the pendency of
the disciplinary proceedings against him, the recovery was not
made.
3. The petitioner has not chosen to produce the order in
the disciplinary proceedings against him, based on which
recovery is made. In the absence of challenge against that
order, the challenge to notices under Revenue Recovery Act is
unsustainable.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)
ps