IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 OP.No. 21897 of 2000(F) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.T. GEORGE, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. LATE THOMAS, KUNNUMMEL HOUSE, MUTHALAKODAM, THODUPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, SMT.REENA THOMAS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DEVICOLAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E) A.G'S OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. 5. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIANAVU. 6. THASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THODUPUZHA. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P. NANDAKUMAR. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 21897/2000-F: ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 15125/2002 IN O.P. NO. 21897/2000-F DISMISSED 24/05/2010. SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. LR(D)3-20497/94 DTD. 02/11/1994 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DTD. 07/02/1995 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS SUPPLIED ALONG WITH EXT.P.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENCE DTD. 07/03/1995 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. LR (E) 4-934/95 DTD. 07/08/1995 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 25/03/1996 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEORE THE R.2. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 05/07/1996 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.D.O. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 15/07/1999 IN C.M.P. NO. 22505/1999 IN O.P. NO. 23090/1998 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 30/08/1999 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 07/06/1999 ISSUED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENCE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.3. ON 23/06/1999. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 16/08/1999 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.3. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DTD. 10/11/1999 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P. NO. 23090/1998. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE HEARING NOTES DTD. 03/02/2000 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. LR.34-20497/94 DTD. 07/02/2000 PASSED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.16: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 19185/D2/99/RD DTD. 17/02/2000 ISSUED BY THE R.1. O.P. NO. 21897/2000-F: EXT.P.17: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD 28/02/2000SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. EXT.P.18: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD. 10/05/2000 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.18(A): COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD. 05/05/2000 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.18(B): COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS SENT ALONG WITH EXT.P.18. EXT.P.19: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENCE DTD. 20/05/2000 SENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.20: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 25/05/2000 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.21: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 29/05/2000 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. EXT.P.21.(A): COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE SPEED POST CENTRE EVIDENCING THE SENDING OF EXT.P.21. EXT.P.22: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G.O.(RT).NO.2276/2000/RD DTD. 31/05/2000. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- O.P.NO.21897 OF 2000 (F) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner retired as Head Clerk from the Revenue Department on 30.11.1995. Prior to his retirement, on the allegation of misconduct, by Ext.P1 order he was placed under suspension. He was issued Ext.P2 memo of charges and thereafter he was reinstated in service on 26.7.1995, without prejudice to the continuance of disciplinary action. His reinstatement was in Kasaragod District but he was thereafter transferred to Idukki District, from where he retired on 30.11.1995. It would appear that in the disciplinary proceedings that were held pursuant to Ext.P2, he was found guilty and as in the meanwhile petitioner attained superannuation, Ext.P15 proceedings were issued by the Land Revenue Commissioner proposing reduction of pension. On the basis of the proposal thus made, Government issued Ext.P18 show cause notice proposing to reduce pension invoking its power under Rule 59(b) of Part III KSR. On receipt of Ext.P18 show cause notice, petitioner submitted his explanation. Thereafter he was issued O.P.No. 21897/00 :2 : Ext.P20 notice dated 25.5.2000 requiring the petitioner to appear in the Chamber of the Secretary to Government, for hearing on 29.5.2000 at 11.30 a.m. This notice was served on the petitioner in the morning on 29.5.2000 and on its receipt petitioner submitted Ext.P21 letter dated 29.5.2000 requesting the first respondent to give him another opportunity of personal hearing. However, without affording another opportunity as sought for, Ext.P22 order was issued by the first respondent on 31.5.2000, ordering to withhold Rs.50/- permanently from the admissible pension due to the petitioner. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Going by the provisions of Rule 59(b) Part III KSR, without hearing the delinquent concerned, an order to withhold pension cannot be passed. In this case it was apparently in view of the above provision that Ext.P20 notice was issued to the petitioner on 25.5.2000 requiring him to appear for personal hearing on 29.5.2000 at 11.30 a.m. Since the notice reached the petitioner only on 29.5.2000, he sought another opportunity. However, without giving such an opportunity, Ext.P22 order was issued O.P.No. 21897/00 :3 : stating inter alia that though the delinquent was given a chance of personal hearing as requested by him, he did not appear. In my view, this is a case where an opportunity of hearing was denied to the petitioner and therefore the impugned order passed under Rule 59(b) cannot be sustained. 3. In view of the above I set aside Ext.P22, with opportunity to the first respondent to issue fresh notice to the petitioner, give him an opportunity of hearing and pass fresh orders in the matter. This shall be done as expeditiously possible and at any rate within 3 months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that this court has not expressed anything on the merits and it is open to the petitioner to canvass his entire contentions, including the correctness of the allegations based on which proceedings have been initiated. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ O.P.No. 21897/00 :4 : ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------------------- O.P.NO.21897 OF 2000 (F) ----------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated: 24.5.2010