IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 17608 of 2003(U)
1. G.DINESH, AGE4D 35 YERARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER,
3. APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY)
5. PHILIP S/O. POTHEN, KUTTARAPALLIKUNNEL
6. JOSE MATHEW S/O. MATHEW,
7. KATTAPPANA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED
For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.SAJEEV
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.R.HARIHARAN NAIR (RETD.JUDGE)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BHASKARAN (RETD.JUDGE)
Dated :19/09/2007
O R D E R
JUSTICE M.R.HARIHARAN NAIR (RETD. JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
&
JUSTICE R.BHASKARAN (RETD. JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
W.P.(C) No. 17608 of 2003
---------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of September, 2007
AWARD
Petitioner is represented by counsel. Second respondent present in
person. Respondents 1 to 4 are represented by Govt. Pleader.
The grievance of the petitioner is that though he had purchased only
3 acres of land, he has been made liable for the tax arrears in respect of a
large extent of 15 acres. During discussions today it was brought to our
notice that subsequent to the issuance to the revenue recovery notice the
demand itself was withdrawn. The second respondent agrees that the
respondents liability is only in respect of the area purchased by him. In the
circumstances, we closed this O.P. with a direction that the second
respondent will be at liberty to issue fresh certificate demanding the
proportionate amount due from the petitioner and that revenue recovery
proceedings can be initiated against the petitioner only in case he fails to
pay the balance amount if any due from him after appropriate notice under
the Revenue Recovery Act.
The O.P. is disposed of as above.
M.R.HARIHARAN NAIR
(RETD. JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
R.BHASKARAN
(RETD. JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
jp
? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
+WP(C) No. 3404 of 2004(E)
#1. DR.K.A.SYED ALAVI,
... Petitioner
Vs
$1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES,
3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT,
! For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
^ For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
*Coram
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
% Dated :13/08/2007
: O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
——————————————-
W.P(C).No.3404 OF 2004
——————————————-
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, then an Assistant Surgeon, was placed
under suspension pending enquiry into alleged misconduct.
Ext.P6 was issued to him requiring him to show cause against
disciplinary action on the allegations contained therein. The
charge was that the application submitted by him for leave from
11.9.1995 to 30.11.1995 on medical certificate was returned on
13.12.1995 with direction to obtain and forward revised leave
application, however, that the petitioner did not submit revised
leave application, but enjoyed 81 days’ eligible leave and re-
joined on 1.12.1995 and still further, that he entered on Earned
Leave for 83 days with effect from 4.2.1996 and that a
confidential check up in the matter was conducted through the
Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) and it was found that the
petitioner entered on Earned Leave, which was not sanctioned,
and he was unauthorisedly absent from service and was
engaged in private practice in Hajath Hospital, Ponnani.
WPC.3404/04
Page numbers
2. In Ext.P7, the petitioner replied to the charges. He stated
that the allegation that he is doing private practice in Hajath
Hospital, Ponnani is not true.
3. By Ext.P9 dated 20.3.1996 the Inspector General of Police
(Vigilance) informed the Government through the Commissioner
and Secretary in the Vigilance Department, in answer to the
Government letter dated 19.3.1996, that the confidential check
up conducted in the matter through Sri.K.Balakrishnan Nair,
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Kozhikode had disclosed,
among other things, that the petitioner is doing private practice
in Hajath Hospital, Ponnani as informed by Sri.Balakrishnan
Nair over phone.
4. The suspension of the petitioner was revoked and
thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were ordered to be
conducted. On the basis of the direction of the Government
contained in the letter dated 30.7.2001, the Director of Health
WPC.3404/04
Page numbers
Services proceeded with the disciplinary action by issuance of
Ext.P11 show cause notice.
5. I may at once notice that as rightly contended by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, though Ext.P11 show cause
notice is issued calling upon the delinquent to show cause why
the proposed decision to award him the punishment of barring of
next two increments with cumulative effect should not be
implemented, it does not contain that it was concluded in the
enquiry that the petitioner was guilty of the charges. Equally,
the DHS also did not deal with the stand of the petitioner that he
is innocent while Ext.P13 was issued, confirming the provisional
decision regarding punishment. In fact, even in Ext.P13, there is
no definite finding as to the guilt.
6. While there is no malice or malafides is attributed to
Sri.K.Balakrishnan Nair, the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance,
Kozhikode or to the Inspector General of Police to hold that the
opinion gathered by them in the confidential check up is wrong
WPC.3404/04
Page numbers
or unreliable, punishment was imposed by the disciplinary
authority without entering a finding as to the guilt.
7. Imposing the punishment of barring of two increments with
cumulative effect has to be treated only as a minor punishment
as at that point of time and Ext.P14 appeal of the petitioner was
considered by the Government. In considering that appeal, the
Government granted the petitioner an opportunity of personal
hearing. The entire records were examined and the contentions
raised by the petitioner, including on the issue as to how the
period of suspension has to be treated, as also the question of
subsistence allowance, were dealt with quite elaborately by the
Government in the appeal. Advertence to paragraphs 6 and 7 of
Ext.P15 order would show that all the contentions of the
petitioner, on the merits, in opposition to the allegations against
him, have been duly adverted to and considered, including by
putting pointed queries to him during the course of personal
hearing. It has been found by the Government that the charges
are substantiated. The Government also took the view that
barring of increments with cumulative effect was re-categorised
WPC.3404/04
Page numbers
as major penalty only after the relevant time and that therefore,
the petitioner’s contention regarding absence of enquiry in terms
of Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 1960 is not sustainable.
8. Having regard to the nature of consideration of the
materials and contentions by the Government as the appellate
authority, as is reflected in the appellate order, Ext.P15,
particularly paragraphs 6 and 7 thereof, the impugned action
cannot be termed as violative of law, in any manner, and the
impugned order Ext.P15, in which, all the earlier proceedings
have merged, is not bad on counts of any jurisdictional error or
legal infirmity.
In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly
dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge
kkb.