IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 OP.No. 20071 of 2002(M) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- BABUJAN @ BABU JOHN S/O. M.A.KUNJU, AGED 50 YEARS, P.C.6390, WORKING AT PIRAVAM POLICE STATION, PIRAVOM, NOW RESIDING AT ARCADIA, CC.29/1035-B, MAJOR ROAD, VYTTILA, KOCHI-19. BY ADV. SRI.A.J.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOCHI CITY, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA RURAL POLICE, ALUVA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO.20071 OF 2002-M APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER'S SALARY FROM 3/1990 TO 6/2002 PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.30/2002/EC DATED 25.1.2002 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. / TRUE COPY / HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------------------------- O.P.No.20071 of 2002 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 17th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT This original petition is filed mainly for a declaration that the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount as stated in Ext.P2 since the petitioner has not received any amount as calculated by the first respondent in Ext.P2 at any point of time. 2. The petitioner complains about Ext.P2 recovery order as unjust and illegal. The petitioner joined service as a police constable in the year 1976. In the year 1990 he was subjected to disciplinary action and pursuant to the enquiry proceedings he was awarded punishment of reduction of three increments. According to the petitioner, Ext.P2 order has been passed without application of mind and without perusing the relevant registers pertaining to the salary disbursement of the police personnel. It is further stated that at no point of time he was given basic pay of Rs.4090/- on the pay scale of Rs.4000-90-4090-100-6090 as stated by the first respondent in Ext.P2 order. The petitioner further stated that the calculation was made wrongly and repeated multiplication was done by the office which resulted in wrong calculation. According to the petitioner, he is not liable to refund any amount as claimed O.P.No.20071 of 2002 2 since throughout the nine years of service he was given the basic pay only. So he prayed to strike down the calculation made in Ext.P2. In Ground C of the original petition the petitioner demonstrated the correct calculation according to him, and also the wrong calculation made by the department. 3. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit the first respondent took the stand that as per the relevant Rules, the amount of Rs.6480/- being the monetary value equivalent to the punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by three years permanently has to be recovered from his salary. The monetary value of the punishment also is shown year-wise and the total amount is worked out at Rs.6480. The said amount was ordered to be adjusted against the arrears due to him consequent on the fixation of pay as per the office order No.634/93/EC dated 24.9.2003. 4. The first respondent also stated in the counter affidavit that the punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by three stages for three years could not be given effect to the petitioner since he was drawing pay at Rs.1200 + 100 P.P. which is being the minimum of the scale of pay of Rs.1200- 2040. O.P.No.20071 of 2002 3 5. In the light of the specific contention of the petitioner that there is mistake in the calculation and, therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as stated in Ext.P2 and that he has not received any amount as calculated by the first respondent, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the first respondent. The calculation shown by the petitioner in Ground C may be considered and appropriate orders may be passed by the first respondent within a period of four months from today. The interim order passed by this Court staying the recovery proceedings shall continue till the matter is reconsidered by the first respondent. Original petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE vns