IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3220 of 2004(G)
1. V.K. JAYARAMAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (H.R.M.)
3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :17/06/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.3220 OF 2004
------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was an Assistant Engineer in the service
of the Board. On certain allegations of misconduct he was
placed under suspension on 6.1.2003. He attained the
age of superannuation on 31.3.2003. On that day he was
reinstated and was allowed to retire from service.
2. On 27.6.2003 Ext.P2 memo of charges was
issued and the charges were following;
“(1) You have intentionally delayed the
service connection in respect of one Sri.
K.Kunhu Muhammed, Kallinkal House,
Chundale P.O, Vythiri with oblique motive and
pecuniary interest.
(2)You have demanded and accepted
Rs.2,000/- as bribe from another consumer,
Smt. Aysha, W/o. Sri.kunhamu, Erichipalli
House, Vythiri for effecting service connection
to her newly constructed building.”
3. He submitted Ext.P3 explanation and finally by
Ext.P6, stating that on perusal of the reply submitted by
WP(c).No.3220/04 2
the delinquent he has not put forth any point worth
consideration, punishment of barring of his last drawn
increment without cumulative effect for a period of 6
months was imposed. It was also ordered that the period of
suspension be treated as suspension itself. It is challenging
Ext.P6 that this writ petition is filed.
4. Two contentions are raised. One is that in the
absence of any allegation that any pecuniary loss was
caused to the Board, continuance of the disciplinary action
beyond retirement is impermissible in view of Rule 3 Part
III KSR. A reading of Rule 3 shows that the Government
have power to proceed against a retired person for ordering
recovery from pension, the pecuniary loss caused to the
Government, if the petitioner is ultimately found guilty of
grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his
service. In this case, the misconduct stated above did not
make out a case coming within the scope of the said Rule.
WP(c).No.3220/04 3
5. That apart a reading of Ext.P6 shows that the
disciplinary authority has not independently considered the
explanation submitted by the delinquent. On the other had
the order itself show that the disciplinary authority was
acting at the dictates of the Chief Engineer by obeying his
instruction to impose punishment on the petitioner. This
contention of the petitioner also deserves acceptance. For
the aforesaid reasons Ext.P6 order is quashed. It is
directed that the disciplinary authority shall take a fresh
decision about the manner in which the period of suspension
of the petitioner is to be treated and on the basis of such
decision s the respondent shall work out the pensionery
benefits of the petitioner and allow the benefits on that
basis.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
WP(c).No.3220/04 4