IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2010 / 7TH ASHADHA 1932 WA.No. 618 of 2010 ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.21572/2000 Dated 01/01/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------- K.C.DEVASSIA, SPECIAL REVENUE INSPECTOR, (RETD.), KARTHIKA VIHAR, S.H.NAGAR, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.618 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 1st January, 2009 in O.P.No.21572 of 2000, the unsuccessful petitioner therein presented the instant writ appeal. 2. The appellant was working as Special Revenue Inspector in the Land Tribunal at Kalpetta. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant and the matter was referred to the Vigilance Tribunal under the Kerala Civil Services (Vigilance Tribunal) Rules, 1960. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the appellant herein retired from service on 31.8.1992. Notwithstanding his retirement, the vigilance proceedings referred to above continued as it was permissible under law. Eventually, the Tribunal submitted a report finding the appellant guilty of the charges framed against him. As a consequence, the disciplinary authority by the order under Ext.P4 imposed a punishment of withholding one-third of the pension WA No.618 of 2010 - 2 - admissible to the appellant for a continuous period of five years. Hence the writ petition. 3. The learned Judge by the judgment under appeal dismissed the writ petition on the ground that for imposing a punishment such as the one imposed upon the appellant- employee, the State need not prove the fact that the misconduct caused any pecuniary loss to the State. The learned Judge also recorded a finding that the appellant did not even care to produce a copy of the enquiry report on the basis of which the impugned decision to withhold part of the pensionary benefits of the appellant was taken. 4. Even at the stage of this appeal, nothing is brought to our notice to demonstrate as to how the impugned action of the respondents is legally unsustainable. We do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. The writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.N.Ravindran, Judge vns