IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20935 of 2010(N)
1. K.U.JOSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :08/07/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).20935/2010
Dated-------------------- 2010
this the 8th day of July,
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was a Commercial Tax Officer in the Commercial
Tax Department.
2. Exts.P5 and P10 are under challenge in this writ petition.
Ext.P5 is the report of enquiry and Ext.P10 is the final order
passed by the Disciplinary authority ordering to realize an
amount of Rs.2,67,340/- from the petitioner out of DCRG due
and the balance amount, by reduction of pension in terms of the
provisions contained in Rule 3 of Part-III, KSR.
3. Facts of the case are that prior to the retirement of the
petitioner on 31.12.2007, Ext.P1 memo of charges was issued
to the petitioner on 4.10.2006. Petitioner submitted Ext.P2
written statement. The enquiry was ordered and finally Ext.P5
enquiry report was submitted. Against the findings in the report,
petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation. Disciplinary
W.P.(C).20935/10
2
Authority considered the matter and issued Ext.P7, proposing to
recover the loss allegedly suffered by the Government on
account of the misconduct committed by the petitioner from the
DCRG, that is due, and pension. Against this proposal, Exts.P8
and P9 objections were filed by the petitioner. Proceedings were
finalized by Ext.P10 in the manner proposed in Ext.P7 It is in
these circumstances the writ petition is filed seeking to quash
Exts.P5 and P10 and for consequential benefits.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the
learned Government Pleader.
5. It cannot be disputed that the procedure followed
culminating in Ext.P10 order is not under Rule 15 KCS (CC & A)
Rules, 1960. On the other hand, even in Ext.P10, it is stated that
after receipt of the written statement from the petitioner,
Government ordered a detailed enquiry as provided under Rule
15(2) of the KCS (CC & A) Rules, 1960. This procedure has not
been followed by the Enquiry Officer who submitted Ext.P5
W.P.(C).20935/10
3
report. This is evident from the report itself. The report was
accepted and Ext.P7 show cause notice was issued followed by
Ext.P10 final order. For this reason itself, proceedings finalized
against the petitioner is illegal. Therefore, Exts.P5 and P10 are
quashed leaving it open to the respondent to conclude
proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with the
procedure laid down under the Rules. Needless to say that the
entire procedure will be expedited and completed within three
months of production of a copy of this judgment. It is made
clear that all the contentions of the parties are left open.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC,
Judge
mrcs