IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17776 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.P.GOPI, RETIRED ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. NOW RESIDING AT 'VISHNUGIRI', PEROOR.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL SRI.V.MADHUSUDHANAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, AGRICULTURE (EST.A) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 17776 OF 2010 (V) ===================== Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner retired as Additional Director of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture on 31/1/2007. He has two grievances. One is about the pendency of disciplinary action, as a result of which, he is getting only provisional pension and the other is regarding the liability that has been fixed in Ext.P10 liability certificate. 2. As far as the disciplinary action is concerned, Ext.P4 is the memo of charges and Ext.P5 is the reply to the memo filed by the petitioner. It is stated that though the reply was filed in May 2008, there has not been any progress in the matter, as a result of which, petitioner is paid only provisional pension. Once disciplinary action is initiated, it is incumbent upon the part of the disciplinary authority to finalise the disciplinary action on an expeditious basis. Therefore, the 1st respondent is directed to expedite and conclude disciplinary action against the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months of production of a copy of this judgment. WPC No. 17776/10 :2 : 3. In so far as the liability that has been fixed against the petitioner is concerned, Ext.P10 is the liability certificate issued by the 2nd respondent. Out of the total liability of Rs.15,38,217, the liability reported by the Principal Agricultural Officer, Idukki vide his letter dated 24/4/2009, is stated to be of Rs.15,32,924. Counsel for the petitioner submits that coming to know of the liability reported by the Principal Agricultural Officer, petitioner represented to the Principal Agricultural Officer, Idukki and based on his representation, the said Officer issued Ext.P11 addressed to the petitioner enclosing Ext.P11(a), copy of a revised liability certificate. It is stated that as the revised liability certificate contains total liability of only Rs.10,189/-, it is contended that the liability fixed in Ext.P10 is liable to be reviewed in the light of Ext.P11(a) revised liability certificate and that seeking revision of the liability as indicated in Ext.P10, petitioner has filed Ext.P12 before the 2nd respondent and that the said representation is also not considered. 4. Having regard to the above facts, what is required to be done is that the 2nd respondent should consider Ext.P10 liability certificate in the light of Ext.P11(a) revised liability WPC No. 17776/10 :3 : certificate relied on by the petitioner and Ext.P12 representation submitted by him. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P12 taking into account Exts.P10 and P11(a) referred to above and the matter shall be considered and orders shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 5. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before respondents 1 and 2 for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp