IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 9049 of 2006(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, S/O. K.P.KRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOCHATTUPURATH, THONNALLOR P.O., VELLUR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY), VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELLUR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. SMT.SMITHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.9049/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E(1)-7158/93 DATED 31/05/1993 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL AGIRCULTURAL OFFICER, KANNUR. P2 : COPY OF the ORDER NO.SS(3)39577/93 DATED 04/10/1995 ISSUED BY the FIRST RESPONDENT. P3 : COPY OF the LETTER DATED 26/11/1999 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TOGETHER WITH ENDORSEMENT OF the FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 29/04/2000. P4 : COPY OF the LETTER NO.SGI(2) 69317/2000 DATED 12/01/2001 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. P5 : COPY OF THE LETTER NO.SVC (7)39577/93 DATED 16/03/2001 ISUED BY the FIRST RESPONDENT AND ADDRESSED TO THE THRID RESPONDENT. P6 : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02/09/2002 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P7 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 02/03/2006 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P8 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 02/03/2006 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P9 : COPY OF the OBJECTION DATED 09/03/2006 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P10 : COPY OF the ACKNOWLEDGMENT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P11 : COPY OF the JUDGMENT IN CRL.A.NO.230/2001 DATED 26/10/2006. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 9049 of 2006 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 29th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was suspended from service on 31/05/1993 while he was working as Agricultural Officer. The case is that petitioner had involved in misappropriation of Government Funds and therefore criminal prosecution was also launched. Petitioner was not allowed to rejoin service eversince the date of suspension. In the normal course, he would have been superannuated on 31/05/1998, hard he continued in service. However, since the criminal case at the first stage ended up in conviction and sentence, department dismissed the petitioner from service by order dated 23/04/2002 with effect from the date of suspension. Consequently, petitioner was not given any retirement benefit. In between, liability towards loss caused by petitioner to the Government was determined at Rs.1,75,188/-. Challenge is against demand and recovery of this amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was unaware of the dismissal order and therefore, petitioner has not challenged the same in this Court. It is also pointed out that during pendency of the writ petition, the conviction and sentence was cancelled in appeal by the Sessions Judge vide Ext.P11. Since dismissal was WP(C) No.9049/2006 -2- based on the conviction by the Magistrate Court, it requires to be reconsidered after conviction and sentence is set aside in appeal. However, since disciplinary proceedings are independent, it is always open to the respondents to take disciplinary action, no matter, whether the conviction is sustained in appeal or not. In any case, dismissal of petitioner from service deserves to be re- considered because of the judgment of the Sessions Judge vacating the conviction and sentence. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of directing 1st respondent to re-consider the dismissal order served on the petitioner and take a decision based on the order of the Sessions Judge in the appeal, after calling for records, and if required, after conducting proper enquiry and notice to petitioner and after giving opportunity to him. Depending on the finalisation of the fresh disciplinary proceedings, petitioner will be released all benefits after adjusting liability due from petitioner. In view of the above findings, revenue recovery proceedings will stand vacated leaving freedom to the concerned respondent to initiate fresh proceedings after decision is rendered by the District Court in the disciplinary proceedings. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg