IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34541 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.T.ANTONY, S/O. K.V.THOMAS, MANALIPARAMBIL, THALAYOLAPARAMBU P.O., B.D.O., UZHAVOOR BLOCK PANCHAYATH. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.AJEESH K.SASI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.34541 OF 2009 (K) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was promoted and posted as Extension Officer at Uzhavoor. While so, in view of the retirement of the then Block Development Officer Sri. K.J. Joseph, Ext.P2 order dated 2910.2005, was issued by the District Collector, Kottayam, directing the petitioner to hold additional charge of the Block Development Officer, Uzhavoor, until further orders. Petitioner continued in that capacity from 1.11.2005 till 14.12.2005, when a new BDO took charge. 2. In the meanwhile, in his capacity of BDO, petitioner took delivery of 30 tonnes of food grains to be distributed under the SGRY scheme and entrusted goods to Sri. K.J. Joseph, who had already retired from service as early as on 31.10.2005. This lead to the suspension of the petitioner by Ext.P7, on the ground that the petitioner was negligent in the discharge of his duties by entrusting food grains to Sri. K.J. Joseph, who had already retired from service. The suspension was later revoked by Ext.P12 order and the petitioner was posted at Manjeswaram. WPC.No.34541 /09 :2 : 3. While continuing as such, Exts.P14 and P14(a) memo of charges and statement of allegations were issued with the aforesaid allegations. An enquiry was conducted and finally by Ext.P21, a punishment of barring of two increments without cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. In this writ petition challenge is against Ext.P21. 4. One of the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that of violation of principles of natural justice. It is also stated that the petitioner himself had disclosed the true facts in Ext.P4 and that it was on the basis of the said communication that proceedings were initiated. According to the counsel, this itself shows that he had no intention to misappropriate the goods. It is stated that the whole commodity entrusted to Sri. K.J. Joseph was later recovered and that there has not been any loss caused to the Government. 5. A reading of the memo of charges which lead to Ext.P21 order shows that the misconduct alleged and proved against the petitioner is that he was negligent in discharging his duties. In the writ petition itself and the documents annexed, the petitioner admits that subsequent to the retirement of Sri. K.J. Joseph, he WPC.No.34541 /09 :3 : collected two consignments of fifteen metric tonnes of food grains each and that the same was entrusted to Sri. K.J. Joseph. Therefore the fact that the food grains, which the petitioner took delivery in his capacity as RDO and which were to be distributed under the SGRY scheme, was entrusted to Sri. K.J. Joseph, a retired Government Official is admitted. This precisely is the negligent act that was alleged against him and which was the subject matter of enquiry. 6. In such circumstances, there is absolutely no basis for the plea of the petitioner that natural justice has been violated. So long as the misconduct is proved, even if it is true that the petitioner had no bad motives can be of little consequence, except in deciding the punishment to be imposed. In my view, a reading of Ext.P21 also shows that the only punishment imposed on the petitioner is barring of two increments and that too without cumulative effect. This cannot be said to be a punishment disproportionate to the charges leveled against the petitioner. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.34541 /09 :4 :