IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30738 of 2008(H) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SALEENA GEORGE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, STATE BIO CONTROL LAB, MANNUTHY, TRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE (ESST.A), DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURE OFFICER, TRISSUR. 4. P.D.PRAKASH, AGRICULTURE OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PUTHUR, PONNUKARA, TRISSUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.Ravindran, J. ===================== W.P(C).No.30738 of 2008 ===================== Dated this the 20th day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard Sri.P.V.Jayachandran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Anu Sivaraman, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. In the nature of the order that I propose to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to or hear the fourth respondent. 2. The petitioner is presently working as Deputy Director of Agriculture. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her by issuing Ext.P3 memo of charges. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 reply to Ext.P3 memo of charges. Thereafter Ext.P6 show cause notice dated 30.4.2007 was issued to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, on receipt of Ext.P6 show cause notice, she submitted Ext.P7 reply setting out all her contentions and that without adverting to any of her contentions, Ext.P8 order was passed directing recovery of the sum of Rs.2,29,307/- from the petitioner and the fourth respondent in equal moieties. Besides directing recovery, the punishment of barring of one increment without cumulative effect was also imposed on the petitioner and the fourth respondent. Ext.P8 is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that the WP(C) 30738/08 -: 2 :- contentions set out by her in Ext.P7 reply have not been adverted to or considered while passing Ext.P8 order. On going through Ext.P8, I find force in the said contention. Rule 35 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the “Rules” for short, empowers the Government to review original orders passed by it in disciplinary proceedings. The period of limitation prescribed in the Rules to invoke the power of review of the Government is two months from the date of the order. The proviso to Rule 35 of the Rules empowers the Government to condone the delay and entertain an application for review on the merits, if the petitioner shows sufficient cause for not making the application for review within the period of two months. Ext.P8 discloses that a copy thereof was served on the petitioner only after 4.8.2008. Since what the petitioner essentially seeks is a reconsideration of Ext.P8, it is only proper that she invokes the power of the Government under Rule 35 of the Rules. The learned Government Pleader however brings to my notice that even going by the endorsements in Ext.P8, the time limit of two months prescribed in Rule 35 of the Rules has expired. 4. Having regard to the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side, I dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to the petitioner to file a petition for review invoking Rule 35 of the Rules. This shall be done within three weeks from today. If the petitioner files an application for review within the aforesaid period WP(C) 30738/08 -: 3 :- of three weeks, the State Government shall treat the application for review as one filed within time, consider the same on the merits and pass orders thereon within three months thereafter. Needless to say, the petitioner shall also be afforded an opportunity of being heard before orders are passed on the review application. If having regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner, the Government feels that the fourth respondent also has to be heard in the matter, the Government will be free to issue notice to and hear him as well. Till orders are passed on the review application, recovery of the loss ordered to be realised from the petitioner and if it has not already taken effect the punishment of barring of one increment without cumulative effect imposed on her as per Ext.P8, shall stand deferred. The petitioner's contentions on the merits are left open. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 20/10