IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20554 of 2010(T)
1. K.S.SASIDHARAN, AGED 54 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESETNED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.V.THOMAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :15/07/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 20554 OF 2010 (T)
=====================
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P5, an order
issued by the 1st respondent finalising the disciplinary action
against the petitioner by barring one increment of pay for one
year without cumulative effect and to retain the excess pay of
Rs.91,359/-, with normal interest till recovery of the same from
the Convenor through revenue recovery proceedings.
2. Petitioner was the Principal Agricultural Officer,
Kottayam. During the period 2001 to 2003, construction of an
outer bund at Velluvakka padasekharam under Paddy
Development Scheme was entrusted to the Convenor of the
Padasekhara Samithi on a total payment of Rs.5,11,000/-, which
was disbursed by the petitioner.
3. Subsequently, Ext.P1 notice dated 6/7/09 was issued to
the petitioner alleging that the petitioner made excess payment
of Rs.91,359/-. Petitioner submitted Ext.P2 explanation. Ext.P3 is
the memo of charges that is issued and Ext.P4 is the written
statement of defence filed by the petitioner. These proceedings
WPC No. 20554/10
:2 :
are now finalised by Ext.P5.
4. A reading of Ext.P5 shows that the lapse found on the
part of the petitioner was that he paid an amount of Rs.91,359 in
excess to the Convenor without obtaining the valuation certificate
from the Assistant Executive Engineer, (Agri), Kottayam. It is
stated that such lapse is a clear violation of the Government
directions. In Ext.P2 reply or in Ext.P4 written statement of
defence, petitioner did not have a case that he did not release
payment nor did he plead that he made payment after receipt of
the valuation certificate. In such circumstances, the finding that
the petitioner had committed the lapse alleged is unassailable,
and if that be so, neither the punishment imposed nor the
direction to withhold the amount from the dues of the petitioner
can be said to be illegal or arbitrary warranting interference in a
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp