Dismissed

T.Sudhakaran Nair v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jul 2010OP/7806/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the permanent deduction of Rs.200 from the petitioner's retired pension due to alleged official negligence. The judge rejected claims that a formal statement of allegations was mandatory, denied that principles of natural justice were violated as the petitioner failed to avail hearings, and upheld the penalty as legally sustainable.

What did the court decide?

The original petition challenging the deduction of Rs.200/month from pension and the subsequent confirmation order is dismissed.

T.Sudhakaran Nair Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932

¶5

OP.No. 7806 of 2003(D)

¶6

----------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

----------------------

¶9

T.SUDHAKARAN NAIR, AGED 59 YEARS, RETIRED DEPUTY COLLECTOR, SURYA, BILATHIKULAM, P.O WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE-673 005.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

-------------------------

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

2. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REVENUE (D) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶15

3. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶16

GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKATH

¶17

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

OP NO.7806/2003

¶19

ORDER IN CMP NO.13612/2003 IN OP NO.7806 OF 2003

¶20

DISMISSED

¶21

21/7/2010

¶22

SD/-ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶25

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY of THE LETTER DT 31.1.2002 BEARING NO.REF.AR.54040/99 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE TO THE PETITIONER WITH ENCLOSURE.

¶26

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY of THE REPLY DT 9.2.2002 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P1.

¶27

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.4.02 BEARING NO.8744/D2/2001/RD ISSUED BY THE 2ND REPSONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶28

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 10.12.2002 BEARING NO.GO(RT) NO.2616/2002/RD, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ O.P. NO. 7806 OF 2003 (D)

¶34

=====================

¶35

Dated this the 21^st day of July, 2010

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

Petitioner retired from service on 30/9/1998 as Deputy Collector. Subsequent to his retirement, along with Ext.P1 covering letter, show cause notice dated 17/1/2002 issued by the 1^st respondent was served on the petitioner, stating that the Government have provisionally decided to reduce an amount of Rs.200/- from his monthly pension under Rule 59 (b) Part III KSR. This was on the allegation that, while in service as Deputy Tahsildar (LA), Kerala State Housing Board, Kozhikode, petitioner neglected his official responsibilities and committed grave omission in preparing a correct calculation statement and deposited an excess amount of Rs.16,21,742/- in EP NO.43/89 in LAR 230/93 before the Sub Court, Thalassery, as a result of which, the Government were divested of huge amount.

¶38

On receipt of Ext.P1, petitioner submitted Ext.P2 dated 9/2/2002 explaining that he was unwell, that he was totally unaware of the allegations, that no opportunity was given to him to explain his part, that he had not received statement of

¶39

OP No.7806/03

¶40

:2 :

¶41

allegation and that there was violation of the principles of natural justice. On this basis, he requested that he be issued statement of allegations and pleaded for documents which are relied on against him. On its receipt, 1^st respondent issued Ext.P3 enclosing a brief history of the case and also stating that for perusal of documents, the petitioner can visit the office of the Under Secretary of the Revenue Department on any working day prior to 10^th of May, 2002.

¶42

Subsequently, Ext.P4 order was issued informing the petitioner that inspite of issuance of the show cause notice and also the brief facts of the case, he failed to submit his explanation. It is also stated that though the petitioner was given a chance for personal hearing, he did not turn up for hearing. In this order, it was concluded that the petitioner was guilty of gross negligence and misconduct in the discharge of his official duties and that the misconduct was committed deliberately with malafide intentions, and therefore, his service as a Government Servant was not satisfactory. Accordingly, the provisional decision to reduce Rs.200 per month from his pension was ordered to be confirmed.

¶43

OP No.7806/03

¶44

:3 :

¶45

In pursuance to Ext.P4, Ext.P5 was issued according sanction to withhold Rs.200/- permanently from the monthly pension of the petitioner. It was thereupon that the original petition was filed challenging the aforesaid proceedings resulting in withholding of Rs.200/- from his monthly pension.

¶46

The first contention raised is that along with Ext.P1 or Ext.P3, statement of allegation was not given to the petitioner. Statement of allegation need be given to a delinquent before commencement of the disciplinary proceedings. But the proceedings which culminated in Exts.P4 and P5 are under Rule 59 of Part III KSR and such a proceedings do not contemplate the issuance of statement of allegations as in the case of a major penalty proceedings under the Conduct Rules. That apart, along with Ext.P3, a brief history of the case containing the details of the allegations of lapses on the part of the petitioner were furnished to the petitioner. This enabled the petitioner to defend the proceedings, and therefore, no prejudice was caused to him. Therefore, I am not persuaded to think that the proceedings against the petitioner should be invalidated on the ground canvassed in the pleadings in the writ petition.

¶47

OP No.7806/03

¶48

:4 :

¶49

The second contention is that the petitioner was not disclosed the materials on the basis of which the proceedings have been finalised. A reading of Ext.P3 shows that in response to Ext.P2, the reply filed by the petitioner against Ext.P1, the history of the case was given to him and in the notice, he was also informed that he can visit the office of the Under Secretary to the Revenue Department on any working day prior to 10^th of May, 2002. Petitioner did not submit either an explanation nor did the petitioner avail of the opportunity extended to him by Ext.P3. Therefore, petitioner cannot now contend that materials relied on were not disclosed to him.

¶50

Then it is contended that the order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. I am not persuaded to accept this plea for the reason that in Ext.P4 itself, it is stated that thought the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, and that, he did not appear for hearing. There is no case that this statement in Ext.P4 is factually wrong. Having not availed of the opportunity of hearing, it is not open to the petitioner to raise a plea of violation of the principles of natural justice as well.

¶51

OP No.7806/03

¶52

:5 :

¶53

On merits also, what is seen from the documents produced by the petitioner is that, as a result of the method of calculation adopted by the petitioner, excess amount was deposited towards interest on interest, which was impermissible. This factual matter has been gone into detail by the Government and it has been found that, as a result of the negligence on the part of the petitioner, the Government had to make an excess deposit of Rs.16,21,742/- in the Execution Court. There is no material to find that this factual finding is perverse.

¶54

For all the aforesaid reasons, I see no merit in the challenge against the impugned order.

¶55

Original petition fails and is dismissed.

¶56

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶57

T.Sudhakaran Nair v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Sudhakaran Nair v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Venu R Vs Dr.S.Raveendran

K.Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Mini Vasudeva Sharma.N Vs State of Kerala and Others

Thomas K.Varghese Vs Mrs. P.M.Sushama

Zachariah P.Joseph Vs P.M.Ali Sagar Pasha IAS

Meenakshi Amma Vs Sree Kumar