IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 22502 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- Y.GEEVARGHESE, S/O.YOHANNAN, "NIZARI", NADUVILAKKARA, ALAMMOODU P.O., MUKHATHALA, KOLLAM (RETIRED SUB REGISTRAR OF ERAVIPURAM SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE). BY ADV. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN SRI.C.K.PRASAD SRI.N.A.JOHN JACOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES(E) DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL-KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 22502 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard Sri. Shabu Sreedharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Anu Sivaraman, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is a pensioner. He retired from service in the year 2008 while he was working as Sub Registrar. While the petitioner was working as Upper Division Clerk in the office of the Sub Registrar, Kilikolloor, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau conducted a surprised check in the year 2002. It was then noticed that the petitioner had not made any entries in the property register and that though he had marked attendance he was not present in the office. Ext.P1 memo of charges dated 6.5.2003 was thereupon issued calling for the petitioner's explanation. Along with Ext.P1 memo, a copy of the report submitted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau was also furnished by the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the memo of charges. By Ext.P2 order dated 23.10.2007, the Government imposed on the petitioner the punishment of barring of two increments without cumulative effect. The petitioner thereupon filed Ext.P3 review petition seeking a review of Ext.P2. By Ext.P4 order dated 19.6.2008 the review petition was W.P.(C) No. 22502/09 2 dismissed. The petitioner contended that since the Sub Registrar's office had been recently shifted to a new building, the registers were not readily available and that was the reason why entries were not made in the property register. As regards the second charge, namely absence from office, the petitioner submitted that he had availed half-pay leave on 21.11.2002 and that explains his absence. These contentions did not find acceptance in the hands of the Government. Hence this writ petition challenging Exts.P2 and P4 orders. 3. The petitioner contends that the findings in Exts.P2 and P4 orders are at variance with the memo of charges. He contends that while in Ext.P1 memo of charges the allegation is that though he had signed the attendance register, he was absent when the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau conducted a surprise inspection, the findings in Exts.P2 and P4 orders are that he had not marked attendance. In my opinion, in the light of the admitted fact that the petitioner was absent with the permission of his superior officer, the statement that he was not present in person is a wrong statement. However, even if the second charge is ignored, the first charge namely, the failure to make relevant entries in the property register, stands established. The petitioner admits that he did not make any entry in the property register. In my opinion that by itself will justify the initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner and also the W.P.(C) No. 22502/09 3 punishment imposed on him. The Government have, by impugned orders, imposed on him only a minor punishment namely barring of two increments. All that was necessary before imposing the said punishment was to issue a memo of charges and to give an opportunity to reply to the same. A detailed enquiry is not contemplated under the rules for the imposition of a minor penalty. Therefore, on the admitted fact, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not guilty of the charges or that the punishment imposed on him is excessive. Further, Ext.P4 order was passed on 19.6.2008 and this writ petition is filed on 6.8.2009. There is no explanation for the long delay in filing this writ petition challenging Exts.P2 and P4 orders. Therefore, on the ground of delay also, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps