IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15291 of 2009(F)
1. N.J. MATHEW, AGED 56,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE WATER
3. UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
4. JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
5. ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME & VIGILANCE
For Petitioner :SRI.MANJU ANTONEY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :08/07/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P.(C) No. 15291 of 2009 F
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this the 8th day of July, 2009
JUDGMENT
Heard Smt. Manju Antoney, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Smt. Anu Sivaraman, the learned Senior Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner was a former employee of the Kerala State Water
Transport department. While in service, disciplinary action was initiated
against him on the allegation that he demanded and accepted illegal
gratification. An enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner was
conducted by the Vigilance Tribunal. Based on the report of the Tribunal,
the Government issued Ext.P1 order dated 16-3-1993 compulsorily retiring
him from service with effect from the date on which he was placed under
suspension i. e., 18-2-1991. The petitioner challenged Ext.P1 by filing O.P.
No. 8094 of 1993 in this Court. The said original petition was dismissed by
Ext.P2 judgment wherein it was held that there is no scope for interfering
W.P.(C) No. 15291/09 2
with Ext.P1. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal. By Ext.P3
judgment delivered on 13-11-2002 the writ appeal was dismissed. The
petitioner thereafter moved the President of India through the Chief
Secretary to Government of Kerala by filing a representation dated 15-2-
2006. The said representation was forwarded to the Government of Kerala
for disposal. On that representation the petitioner was heard by the Secretary
to Government, Vigilance department on 27-12-2007. This writ petition is
filed contending that though the petitioner was heard on 27-12-2007, till
date orders have not been passed on his representation or communicated to
him. However, relying on Ext.P6 extract from the files, wherein the Hon’ble
Minister had ordered that the review petition be rejected, it is contended that
the order rejecting the review petition is a cryptic order.
3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents,
on instructions, submits that pursuant to the hearing held on 27-12-2007, the
Government had issued G.O.(Ms) No.28/2008/Vig. dated 16-8-2008
rejecting the representation dated 15-2-2006 submitted by the petitioner and
that a copy thereof was also communicated to the petitioner. The learned
counsel for the petitioner disputes the said statement and submits that the
petitioner has not so far been served with a copy of the order passed by the
Government on 16-8-2008. He submits that the Government may be
W.P.(C) No. 15291/09 3
directed to serve a copy of the order dated 16-8-2008 on the petitioner and
that the petitioner may be granted an opportunity to amend the writ petition
by incorporating a prayer to challenge the said order.
4. In my opinion, in the light of Exts.P2 and P3 judgments of this
Court, the challenge to the order passed by the Government on 16-8-2008
rejecting the petitioner’s representation must fail. The petitioner
unsuccessfully challenged the order compulsorily retiring him from service
in this Court. The original petition filed by him was dismissed by Ext.P2
judgment delivered on 22-12-2000. The petitioner carried the matter in
appeal and the Division Bench of this Court concurred with the learned
single Judge and dismissed the appeal by Ext.P3 judgment. Nearly three
years thereafter, the petitioner moved the President of India by submitting a
representation. That representation was forwarded to the Government of
Kerala and after the petitioner was heard, the Government rejected the
same. In my opinion, in the light of Exts.P2 and P3 judgments of this Court,
Ext.P1 order compulsorily retiring the petitioner has attained finality. The
Government could not have thereafter reviewed it as prayed for by the
petitioner. Since Exts.P1 and P2 judgments have attained finality, the
petitioner was not in my opinion entitled to seek any relief at the hands of
the Government. Further the representation submitted by him was also
W.P.(C) No. 15291/09 4
highly belated. For these reasons I am of the considered opinion that the
petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. The writ petition
fails and is accordingly dismissed.
P.N.RAVINDRAN,
JUDGE.
mn.