IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20935 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.U.JOSEPH, (RETIRED LAW OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD), KARACKATTU HOUSE, KAIRALI HOUSING COLONY, PODIMATTOM, PARATHODU P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 512. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. GP SRI. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).20935/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner was a Commercial Tax Officer in the Commercial Tax Department. 2. Exts.P5 and P10 are under challenge in this writ petition. Ext.P5 is the report of enquiry and Ext.P10 is the final order passed by the Disciplinary authority ordering to realize an amount of Rs.2,67,340/- from the petitioner out of DCRG due and the balance amount, by reduction of pension in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 3 of Part-III, KSR. 3. Facts of the case are that prior to the retirement of the petitioner on 31.12.2007, Ext.P1 memo of charges was issued to the petitioner on 4.10.2006. Petitioner submitted Ext.P2 written statement. The enquiry was ordered and finally Ext.P5 enquiry report was submitted. Against the findings in the report, petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation. Disciplinary W.P.(C).20935/10 2 Authority considered the matter and issued Ext.P7, proposing to recover the loss allegedly suffered by the Government on account of the misconduct committed by the petitioner from the DCRG, that is due, and pension. Against this proposal, Exts.P8 and P9 objections were filed by the petitioner. Proceedings were finalized by Ext.P10 in the manner proposed in Ext.P7 It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P5 and P10 and for consequential benefits. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. 5. It cannot be disputed that the procedure followed culminating in Ext.P10 order is not under Rule 15 KCS (CC & A) Rules, 1960. On the other hand, even in Ext.P10, it is stated that after receipt of the written statement from the petitioner, Government ordered a detailed enquiry as provided under Rule 15(2) of the KCS (CC & A) Rules, 1960. This procedure has not been followed by the Enquiry Officer who submitted Ext.P5 W.P.(C).20935/10 3 report. This is evident from the report itself. The report was accepted and Ext.P7 show cause notice was issued followed by Ext.P10 final order. For this reason itself, proceedings finalized against the petitioner is illegal. Therefore, Exts.P5 and P10 are quashed leaving it open to the respondent to conclude proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Rules. Needless to say that the entire procedure will be expedited and completed within three months of production of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that all the contentions of the parties are left open. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs