IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4175 of 2009(V) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- G.SUDHEENDRAN, RETD.DEPUTY COLLECTOR, KUNCHI, M.O.WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.PRADEEPKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 6. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E) OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKATH, R6 BY SRI. T.P.M.IBRAHIMKHAN, A.S.G. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.4175/2009-V: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).4347/08 DTD. 06/03/2008. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. FBA6-61035/04 DTD. 01/03/08 OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. FBA6-61035/04 DTD. 06/03/08 OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. P3/PENA/1198/P/04-05/147 DTD. 30/07/08. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES NO.S-46596/98 DTD. 23/02/99. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA NO. S1-46596/98(1). EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA NO.S1-46596/98(1) DTD. 30/10/2000. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE HIGH COURT IN C.M.P. NO. 5965/96 IN L.A.A. NO.962/96 DTD. 20/06/1997. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN L.A.A. NO. 962/96 DTD. 20/06/1997. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).NO.1739/07/RD DTD. 25/04/2007. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.4175 OF 2009(V) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner retired from service as Deputy Collector on 30.11.2006. While in service as Deputy Tahsildar (LA) Alappuzha, in relation to a land acquisition proceedings which are initiated at that time, there were litigations in the Reference Court regarding the compensation payable. Against the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Court, the State of Kerala filed LAA.No.962/96 before this court along with CMP.NO.5965/96 praying for condonation of delay of 597 days in filing the appeal. That CMP was considered and this court passed Ext.P9 order dismissing the same. While dismissing the CMP, it was ordered thus; “In the circumstances, if the Government is of the view that by the dismissal of the petition and the consequential dismissal of the appeal, the State has lost the amount of Rs.1,70,765/-, it may have to take appropriate action against the officers who have caused the delay in filing the appeal after conducting due enquiries in the matter. We would expect that the State would take note of the seriousness of the matter with a view to find out the officers who are responsible for such delays by their omission and commissions and to proceed against them in an exeplary manner, if they are really guilty of WPC.No. 4175/09 :2 : dereliction of duties, so that such failures causing heavy loss to the State can be avoided in future and losses caused can also be recovered from them. We are forced to make these observations because of the experiences we are having every day while dealing with the appeals filed before this Court with delays extending to 1000 to 2000 days and more with explanations which can hardily be treated as explanation, leave alone sufficient or satisfactory. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly dismissed. Forward a copy of this Order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, for information and immediate necessary action. “ 2. In pursuance to the aforesaid directions in the judgment minor penalty proceedings were initiated for recovery of loss and accordingly Ext.P5 memo of charges was issued to the petitioner alleging that against the direction of the then Tahsildar petitioner furnished his report delaying it more than 8 months and that as a result of which Government suffered a loss of Rs. 1,70,762. Ext.P6 is the reply filed by the petitioner. 3. The 4th respondent considered the matter and issued Ext.P7. In Ext.P7, it was held that explanation of the petitioner was unacceptable and that he did not have any satisfactory explanation which merits consideration. Finding that irresponsibility and carelessness on his part has been clearly WPC.No. 4175/09 :3 : proved and taking a serious view it was proposed to recover an amount of Rs.74,876 from the petitioner towards the loss suffered by the Government. Accordingly, petitioner was called upon to show cause why the said proposed punishment shall not be imposed. According to the Petitioner, he submitted an explanation to Ext.P7. The proceedings were fianlised by Ext.P8 order of the District Collector, ordering recovery of Rs.74,786 being the apportioned liability of the petitioner out of the total liability of Rs.1,70,762/-. It is challenging Ext.P8 that this writ petition is filed. 4. The first contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings culminating in Ext.P8 are not completed in terms of the provisions contained in the KCS(CC&A) Rules. Counsel made reference to Rule 16, which lays down for the procedure for imposing minor penalty. According to the learned counsel there is no compliance of Rule 16(2) in as much as it is contended that with the record of the proceedings do not include order of the case together with reasons thereon. In my view, Ext.P8 is an order of the case together with the reason for passing the said order. Therefore the complaint that Rule 16(2) WPC.No. 4175/09 :4 : has not been complied with, cannot be accepted. 5. The other contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that before passing Ext.P8 order PSC was not consulted. Consultation with the PSC is governed by the provisions of PSC(Consultation Regulations) 1957. Regulation 6, provides that it shall not be necessary for the Commission to be consulted on any disciplinary manner affecting a person serving in connection with the affairs of the state except where the Government proposed to pass an original order imposing recovery from the pay of the government servant of the whole or part of the pecuniary loss caused to the Government or to the Central Government or to a local authority. In this case recovery was effected from the DCRG that was due to the petitioner. The order in this case is passed by the Collector and not by the Government. Therefore, on the facts of this case, Rule 6 of the PSC (Consultation Regulation) is inapplicable. 6. It is contended that the materials relied on by the disciplinary authority were not disclosed to the petitioner and that details of documents that are relied on are not revealed in Ext.P8 order. In my view these contentions are also unsustainable. This is WPC.No. 4175/09 :5 : for the reason that in a minor penalty proceedings enquiry as contemplated in the case major penalty proceedings is not required to be conducted. On the other hand Rule only requires that the delinquent should be given a notice and an opportunity to explain his case. In this case by issuing Ext.P5 memo of charges, the petitioner has been informed of the allegations against him and he has submitted Ext.P6 explanation which was duly adverted to. It was thereafter that Ext.P7 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which also the petitioner submitted his explanation. It is thereafter that Ext.P8 order has been issued. Therefore I do not find any procedural lapses in passing Ext.P8 order warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 4175/09 :6 :