IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 21442 of 2007(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------------- C.K. BABU, OVERSEER GRADE II, POOTHADI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE KUTTY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (J) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. POOTHADI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 ADV. SRI.SUNNY XAVIER FOR R2 SMT.BEENA THOMAS (ERNAKULAM) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.21442/2007 C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF MEMO OF CHARGES DTD. 25/01/2006 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 16/03/2006. EXT.P3: COPY OF ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 07/03/2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY ASST.ENGINEER, LSGD SECTION, POOTHADI PANCHAYAT. EXT.P5: COPY OF CERTIFICATE DTD. 30/04/2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss P.N.Ravindran, J. ===================== W.P(C).No.21442 of 2007 ===================== Dated this the 21st day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard Sri.Georgekutty Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.P.Nandakumar, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Sri.Sunny Xavier, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Panchayat. 2. The petitioner is working as Overseer Grade II In the second respondent Panchayat since 21.5.2007. Prior to that he was working in Nadathara Grama Panchayat in Thrissur district for the period from 9.11.2006 to 20.5.2007. Earlier, he had worked as Overseer Grade II in the second respondent Panchayat during the period from 14.8.2001 to 8.11.2006. Alleging that there was lack of supervision on his part while he was Overseer Grade II in the second respondent Panchayat during the period from 14.8.2001 to 8.11.2006, Ext.P1 memo of charges was issued and served on him by the Secretary to Government, Local Self Government Department. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 reply dated 16.2.2006 wherein he specifically pointed out that he was not entrusted with the duty to supervise public works and that his duty was only to inspect the buildings constructed within the limits of the Panchayat and also to discharge other duties entrusted to him by the Secretary of the Panchayat. He also pointed out that public works including the work WP(C)21442/07 -: 2 :- referred to in Ext.P1 memo of charges, were supervised by Assistant Engineers and Overseers of the Local Self Government Department deputed from the Water Resources Department. The explanation offered by the petitioner did not find acceptance at the hands of the Government and the Government by Ext.P3 dated 7.3.2007 imposed on the petitioner, the punishment of barring of two increments without cumulative effect. Ext.P3 is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits with reference to Exts.P4 and P5 certificates issued by the Assistant Engineer, Local Self Government Department Section, Poothadi Grama Panchayat that the petitioner was supervising only the works under the Kerala Municipal Building Rules that the construction of Kottavayal-Kovala- Cherukunnu road was done under the supervision of an Assistant Engineer and Overseer of the Local Self Government Department deployed from the Water Resources Department and that the petitioner had no role to play in the execution of the said work. The learned Government Pleader contends that these facts were not brought to the notice of the Government and that as there was no cogent material in support of the contention raised by the petitioner that he had no role to play in the execution of the work, the Government found him guilty of negligence in the discharge of his duties and imposed on him the punishment of barring of two increments without cumulative effect. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the WP(C)21442/07 -: 3 :- learned counsel appearing on either side. The authenticity and genuineness of Exts.P4 and P5 are not in dispute. These documents disclose that the petitioner was in no way associated with the execution of the work referred to in Ext.P1 memo of charges. No material has been placed on record to indicate that notwithstanding the statements in Exts.P4 and P5, the petitioner was in fact, associated with the execution of the work referred to Ext.P1. A reading of Ext.P3 indicates that the Government overruled the petitioner's contentions merely stating that his explanation was not satisfactory. In the light of Exts.P4 and P5, the conclusions arrived at by the Government in Ext.P3 cannot be sustained. 5. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed, Ext.P3 is quashed and the respondents are directed to disburse to the petitioner all consequential monetary benefits, if the said order has already been given effect to and his increments withheld. Disbursement of monetary benefits shall be made within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will also be entitled to all other service benefits if he has been ... any by reason of Ext.P3. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 24/10