IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2849 of 2009(L) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- K.VIJAYAN, THARAPPEL HOUSE, KANAKKARY.PO KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, KERALA, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,AGRICULTURE DIRECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P. NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 2849 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 17th February,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner retired from service of Agriculture Department as a Principal Agriculture Officer on 30.4.2006. Pursuant to disciplinary action taken against him and some others, Exhibit-P5 order has been passed by the Government by which the Government finalised the disciplinary proceedings against the accused officers by awarding recovery of 80% of the total loss of Rs.1,58,990/- from the DCRG of the petitioner and 10% of the loss each from the pay and allowances of Sri. K.K. Chandran, Deputy Director of Agriculture and Sri.Kurian Mathew, Assistant Director of Agriculture. 2. In view of the disciplinary proceedings pending against him so far the retirement benefits have not been quantified and no order of sanction has been issued. Petitioner on receipt of Exhibit-P5 has filed Exhibit P6 before the Agriculture Production Commissioner seeking W.P ( C) No. 2849 of 2009 2 for a reconsideration of the matter. Petitioner has sought cancellation of the order contending that there is no dereliction of duties on his part and he has not caused any loss to the Government. 3. Petitioner has a further contention that since the disciplinary proceedings have been finalised after retirement no punishment could have been imposed against him and the order now passed is not pursuant to any judicial proceedings also. 4. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit-P6 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Second respondent will see whether Exhibit-P6 is maintainable before him and if it is not maintainable, the matter will have to be referred to the Government treating it as a review under Rule 35 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 and in that event the Government will consider it on merits and pass orders thereon after hearing him. Petitioner has got a contention that so far the W.P ( C) No. 2849 of 2009 3 DCRG and other benefits have not been sanctioned to him. It is pointed out that the admissible amount of DCRG could be disbursed without any delay. Therefore, the 2nd respondent will take appropriate action to sanction the DCRG and other retirement benefits due to the petitioner and the admissible amount will be disbursed to him without further delay. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 2849 of 2009 4 W.P ( C) No. 2849 of 2009 5