IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 OP.No. 7749 of 2003(V) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.K.CHANDIKUNJU, ASST.DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE (RTD.) LAIJU NIVAS, KALPETTA P.O., WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUKUMARA MENON SMT.DEEPTHI S.MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI..T.K.MOHANAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.13549/2003 IN OP. NO.7749/2003 DISMISSED 03.12.2008 SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES WITH STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER NO.22232/EA3/97/AD DT. 27.8.98. P2:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 12.9.98 OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.22232/EA3/97/AD DT. 20.2.01 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P4:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 11.4.01 OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.2006/2001/00 DT. 12.12.01. P6:- COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DT. 11.4.02 OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 10.4.02 FROM THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE RESPONDENT . P8:- COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER G.O.(RT) 1542/02/AD DT. 10.12.02. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O.P. No.7749/2003-V ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders, Exts.P5 and P8 passed by the respondent. He retired from service on superannuation on 31/08/1998. On the eve of retirement on 27/08/1998, he was served with Ext.P1 memo of charges. He submitted a reply Ext.P2 to the same. Thereafter, by Ext.P3 a show cause notice was issued informing that the Government proposes to fix loss to the tune of Rs.1,02,613/- tentatively and decided to recover it from him. He was asked to submit explanation which was complied with by the petitioner by submitting Ext.P4. Thereafter, Ext.P5 order has been passed fixing liability to the tune of Rs.1,02,583/-. The petitioner challenged it by submitting Ext.P6 before the Government itself and, explaining the delay, he has submitted Ext.P7 along with Ext.P6. The Government by Ext.P8 rejected it stating that going by Rule 25 of K.C.S (C.C.A) Rules no appeal should be entertained unless it is submitted within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. This is under challenge in this petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. O.P No.7749/2003 -:2:- 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that actually Ext.P6 is accompanied by Ext.P7, which is the petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It is therefore submitted that the reason stated in Ext.P8 that the appeal cannot be entertained at all as it is belated is not correct. A reading of Rule 25 of K.C.S (C.C.A) Rules and its proviso show that the appellate authority may entertain an appeal even after the expiry of the two months provided in the Rule, if it is satisfied that applicant has sufficient cause for not submitting the appeal in time. In that view of the matter, the stand taken in Ext.P8 that Ext.P6 cannot be entertained, as it was not filed within the time limit provided under Rule 25 of K.C.S (C.C.A) Rules, is not correct. The reading of Ext.P8 shows that none of the contentions have been considered on merit. This original petition was filed in the year 2003 and was pending here for the last five years. Since the petitioner has raised various contentions in Ext.P6 challenging the very imposition of the liability, the same requires consideration on merits. 4. In that view of the matter, I quash Ext.P8 and direct the respondent to hear and dispose of Ext.P6, after condoning the delay, on merits within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall be offered personal hearing in the matter before it is disposed of. O.P is disposed of accordingly. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms