IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 15067 of 2009(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- S.BAHULEYAN, R.D.O. (RETD.), KAILASAM, T.C.48/1087 (4), VIKAS NAGAR, AMBALATHARA, POONTHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.M.V.BOSE, MR.VINOD MADHAVAN, SMT.NISHA BOSE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E) KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. ANTONY MUKKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.15067/2009-C: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER G.O.(RT).NO.3518/2003/RD DTD. 11/11/2003. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 17/11/2003 IN W.P.(C).35505/2003. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE G.O. DTD. 10/12/2004. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE POSTING ORDER DTD. 03/01/2005 BY G.O.(RT).NO.34/2005/RD. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FROM PETITIONER DTD. 29/11/2007. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 06/12/2007 OF THE R.3. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.D 10/01/2008 OF THE R.3. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 29/02/2008 OF THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 17/09/2008 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 15067 OF 2009 (C) ===================== Dated this the 7th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner retired as an RDO on 30/11/2007. His full terminal benefits in full have not been released and that is why this writ petition is filed. 2. It is stated that while working as Assistant Secretary of Survey and Land Records, he was placed under suspension by Ext.P1 order on the allegation that in a land acquisition proceedings, petitioner submitted an incorrect valuation report. He was subsequently reinstated in service by Ext.P3 order. As he was retiring on 30/11/2007, he submitted Ext.P5 representation to treat the period of suspension as leave. However, orders were not passed and the petitioner retired from service. 3. By Exts.P6 and P7, he was granted only provisional pension and subsequently Ext.P8 order was issued according sanction for the payment of Rs.7,201/- per month w.e.f. 1/12/2007 being the provisional pension to the petitioner and Rs.3,94,676/- being commutted value of pension and 75% of the DCRG. WPC 15067/09 :2 : 4. It would appear that in the meanwhile owners of the land in respect of which the petitioner submitted the valuation report approached the Reference Court by filing LAR Nos.8/01 and 9/01 and the Additional Sub Court, Trivandrum enhanced the land value to Rs.98,800/- as against Rs.76,881/- per Are, awarded based on the petitioner's valuation. After the Sub Court Judgment, District Collector submitted Ext.P9 to the 1st respondent stating that in view of the judgment of the Reference Court there was no basis for the allegation that due to the misconduct committed by the petitioner, Government had suffered loss of Rs.53,80,342/- and that the vigilance enquiry and the disciplinary action pending against the petitioner has to be finalised on that basis. Orders were not passed on the basis of Ext.P9 and therefore the writ petition is filed mainly praying for directing the respondents to disburse the amounts due to the petitioner. 5. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner also made available for my perusal, the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in LAA No.309/09 filed by the State against the judgment of the Sub WPC 15067/09 :3 : Court in LAR 9/01, which was dismissed by judgment dated 18th of March, 2009. 6. Learned Government Pleader on the other hand submits that the whole award and the enhancement was based on the wrong report submitted by the petitioner and therefore even inspite of the judgment of the Reference Court and this Court, the petitioner is liable to be proceeded against. 7. As already seen, the allegation against the petitioner was that on the basis of the wrong report submitted by the petitioner, Rs.76,881/- per Are was awarded and that in the process Government sustained a loss of Rs.53,80,342/-, it is now the admitted position that the Sub Court enhanced the land value to Rs.98,800/- by its judgment in LAR Nos.8/01 and 9/01. The Division Bench of this Court has also confirmed the judgment of the Sub Court judgment in LAR 9/01 by dismissing LAA NO.309/09. This means that not only that the valuation and the amount awarded was found to be low, but the Reference Court has enhanced the land value, which has been confirmed by this Court also. If so, in view of the aforesaid judgments, there is no substance in the case of the respondents that the petitioner had WPC 15067/09 :4 : given a wrong valuation report. Therefore, there is no basis to proceed against the petitioner, and as a result thereof, he is liable to be exonerated. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the respondents shall disburse the entire pensionary benefits including DCRG and terminal surrender of Earned Leave and any other benefits that are withheld from the petitioner. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp