IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19520 of 2009(H)
1. SUNDARESAN T.S.,S/O.THAMPI,AGED 59,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.S.MANILAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :27/07/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-----------------------------
W.P(C) No.19520 of 2009-H
------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
Heard Sri.C.S.Manilal, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is a pensioner. Disciplinary action was
initiated against the petitioner while he was in service which culminated
in Ext.P5 order dated 23.2.2004 whereby the Commissioner for Rural
Development fixed the total sum of Rs.16,500/- as his liability and
directed recovery of the said sum from him. The Commissioner for Rural
Development also imposed on him the punishment of withholding of two
increments without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by Ext.P5, the petitioner
filed Ext.P6 appeal addressed to the Government within the period of
limitation prescribed under Rule 25 of the Kerala Civil Services (Control,
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. Instead of forwarding
the appeal to the Government, the Commissioner for Rural Development
himself considered the appeal and passed Ext.P7 order dated 6.7.2006
reducing the liability fixed as per Ext.P5. Aggrieved thereby a review
petition dated 15.9.2006 was filed before the Government. By Ext.P8
order dated 17.11.2008 the said review petition was dismissed. Hence
W.P(C) No.19520 of 2009-H 2
this writ petition challenging Exts.P5, P7 and P8 orders.
3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents submits on instructions that Ext.P6 appeal was not
forwarded to the Government and that it was disposed of by the original
authority himself namely the Commissioner for Rural Development. He
submits that thereafter Ext.P7 order was passed and it was unsuccessfully
challenged by the petitioner before the Government in review. In my
opinion, the procedure adopted by the Commissioner for Rural
Development is illegal. As the disciplinary authority, the Commissioner
for Rural Development could not have disposed of Ext.P6 appeal. He
could have only withheld the appeal if the appeal was not filed in terms
of the provisions contained in Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 1960 or returned it for proper presentation. He
however disposed of the appeal and passed a revised order, thereby
depriving the petitioner of his right to challenge the order before the
Government, the competent appellate authority. These aspects have not
been taken note of by the Government when the Government passed
Ext.P8 order. I am therefore of the considered opinion that Exts.P7 and
P8 orders are liable to be set aside.
I accordingly allow this writ petition, quash Exts.P7 and P8 and
direct the Commissioner for Rural Development to forward the original of
W.P(C) No.19520 of 2009-H 3
Ext.P6 appeal to the Government. This shall be done within one month
from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this
judgment before him. The Government shall after the original of Ext.P6
appeal is received by them issue notice to the petitioner, hear him and
pass orders thereon, giving reasons in support of their conclusions. Final
orders in the matter shall be passed within four months from the date of
which the original of Ext.P6 appeal is received by the Government.
Sd/-
P.N.RAVINDRAN
JUDGE
//True Copy//
PA to Judge
ab