IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15634 of 2009(Y)
1. O.P.RADHAKRISHNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,
For Petitioner :SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :08/06/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.15634 of 2009
--------------------------------------
Dated 8th June, 2009
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Murali Purushothaman, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is presently working as Deputy Tahsildar.
On the allegation that while he was working as Village Officer in Vilayur
Village in Ottappalam Taluk, he had recommended the issuance of a
solvency certificate to Sri.Babu by exorbitantly valuing the lands
belonging to him, Ext.P1 memo of charges was issued to the
petitioner by the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue
Department. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 reply wherein he
admitted that he had recommended the issuance of a solvency
certificate to Sri.Babu and had also admitted that he had reported that
the lands have a market value of Rs.21 lakhs. After Ext.P2 reply was
submitted, the petitioner was also heard in person. The Government
thereafter issued Ext.P4 order dated 12.5.2005 imposing on the
petitioner the minor punishment of barring one increment without
cumulative effect. The petitioner thereupon moved the Government in
review. By Ext.P6 order passed on 17.3.2009 the review petition was
also dismissed. Exts.P4 and P6 are under challenge in this writ
petition.
WP(C).No.15634/2009 2
3. A reading of Exts.P4 and P6 indicates that there was
large scale malpractice in the issuance of solvency certificates to abkari
contractors. While working as Village Officer in Vilayur Village, the
petitioner recommended the issuance of solvency certificate to
Sri.Babu. The petitioner reported to his superior officer that 1 acre 39
cents of land belonging to Sri.Babu will fetch a market value of Rs.21
lakhs. On enquiry it was found that the petitioner had valued the land
without reference to the actual market value. The petitioner admitted
having given such a recommendation. His explanation was that since
a large number of Non Indian Residents are residing in the locality, the
land value was on the higher side. The Government on a consideration
of the entire facts held that though no pecuniary loss has been caused
to the Government, the petitioner had recommended the issuance of a
solvency certificate without adopting any yardstick. For improper
conduct, the Government decided to impose on the petitioner the
minor punishment of barring of one increment without cumulative
effect. The petitioner has no case that before imposing the
punishment of barring of one increment without cumulative effect, the
procedure prescribed in Rule 16 of the Kerala Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 had not been followed.
The petitioner also moved the Government in review. The review
WP(C).No.15634/2009 3
petition was also considered and rejected. In the light of the findings
arrived at by the Government, over which this Court cannot sit in
appeal, it cannot be held that the punishment awarded to the
petitioner is excessive. In the absence of any plea on the side of the
petitioner that the procedure prescribed under the rules has not been
followed, I find no merit in the challenge to Exts.P4 and P6.
The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
P.N.RAVINDRAN
Judge
TKS