IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 OP.No. 21572 of 2000(R) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.C. DEVASSIA, SPECIAL REVENUE INSPECTOR (RETD.), KAVITHA VIHAR, S.H. NAGAR, KALPETTA – 673 122, WAYANAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, SEDRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 21572/2000. ------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 RUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF DEFENCE. EXT.P2 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT. 12-1-1999. EXT.P3 XPLANATION DT. 16-6-1999. EXT.P4 ORDER DT. 9-6-2000. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 21572 of 2000 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 1st January, 2009. J U D G M E N T While working as a Special Revenue Inspector at Land Tribunal, Kalpetta, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in respect of certain official acts. The matter was referred to the Vigilance Tribunal under the Kerala Civil Services (Vigilance Tribunal) Rules, 1960. While the proceedings before the Tribunal were pending, the petitioner retired from service on 31-8-1992. However, by virtue of the provisions of Rule 3 of Part III of K.S.R, disciplinary proceedings were continued and the Vigilance Tribunal submitted its report finding the petitioner guilty of the charges framed against him. Pursuant thereto, the disciplinary authority, by Ext. P4 order, imposed on the petitioner the punishment of withholding or withdrawing 1/3rd of the pension admissible for the petitioner for a continuous period of five years invoking Rule 3 of Part III of K.S.R. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P4 order in this original petition. 2. The main challenge in this original petition is regarding the competence of the Government to reduce pension of the petitioner in the absence of any allegation that any loss has been caused to the Government on account of the misconduct proved against the petitioner. The petitioner also contends that the finding of guilt entered by the Vigilance Tribunal is not supported by any evidence adduced in the enquiry. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. As far as the question of law raised by the petitioner is concerned, the same is squarely covered by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Raveendran Nair v. State of Kerala, 2007 (1) KLT 605 (F.B). In that decision, the Full Bench held that even without any pecuniary loss caused to the Government on account of a misconduct O.P. No. 21572/2000 -: 2 :- proved against the petitioner, Government has power to withhold or withdraw the pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period as a penalty. That being so, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that without any finding of pecuniary loss on account of the misconduct found to have been committed by the petitioner, the pension of the petitioner cannot be withheld. 5. As far as the contentions on merit regarding the guilt of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has not produced any material whatsoever in support of his contention. He has not even produced the enquiry report on the basis of which the petitioner has been found guilty. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the original petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/