IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20554 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.S.SASIDHARAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.LATE SREEDHARAN, PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (PERMANENT ADDRESS:POONJARAN PARAMBIL, MADAKKATHANAM P.O.,MOOVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.V.THOMAS SMT.M.M.JASMIN SRI.NIDHI SAM JOHNS RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESETNED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,AGRICULTURE DEPT, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVAANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, AGRICULTURAL DIRECTORATE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 20554 OF 2010 (T) ===================== Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P5, an order issued by the 1st respondent finalising the disciplinary action against the petitioner by barring one increment of pay for one year without cumulative effect and to retain the excess pay of Rs.91,359/-, with normal interest till recovery of the same from the Convenor through revenue recovery proceedings. 2. Petitioner was the Principal Agricultural Officer, Kottayam. During the period 2001 to 2003, construction of an outer bund at Velluvakka padasekharam under Paddy Development Scheme was entrusted to the Convenor of the Padasekhara Samithi on a total payment of Rs.5,11,000/-, which was disbursed by the petitioner. 3. Subsequently, Ext.P1 notice dated 6/7/09 was issued to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner made excess payment of Rs.91,359/-. Petitioner submitted Ext.P2 explanation. Ext.P3 is the memo of charges that is issued and Ext.P4 is the written statement of defence filed by the petitioner. These proceedings WPC No. 20554/10 :2 : are now finalised by Ext.P5. 4. A reading of Ext.P5 shows that the lapse found on the part of the petitioner was that he paid an amount of Rs.91,359 in excess to the Convenor without obtaining the valuation certificate from the Assistant Executive Engineer, (Agri), Kottayam. It is stated that such lapse is a clear violation of the Government directions. In Ext.P2 reply or in Ext.P4 written statement of defence, petitioner did not have a case that he did not release payment nor did he plead that he made payment after receipt of the valuation certificate. In such circumstances, the finding that the petitioner had committed the lapse alleged is unassailable, and if that be so, neither the punishment imposed nor the direction to withhold the amount from the dues of the petitioner can be said to be illegal or arbitrary warranting interference in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp