IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35097 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.RAVI, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, THEKKANATHALLOOR, MADAPALLY P.O., CHANGANASSERY, WORKING AS AUDIT SUPERVISOR, PANCHAYATH ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OFFICE, PERFORMANCE AUDITING, UNIT II, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, PANCHAYATH DIRECTOR OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, IDUKKI DISTRICT, IDUKKI. 3. KONNATHADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KONNATHADI, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, TRIVANDRUM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.35097 OF 2009 (F) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was the secretary of the 3rd respondent Panchayat. It is stated that during his tenure, he was sanctioned an advance of Rs.7,200/- to the Convener of Peoples' planning Programme. The allegation is that, the work was not done and that he did not take steps for recovery of the amount. 2. Though this allegation is denied, he was issued Ext.P1 memo of charges. Enquiry was conducted and finally he was issued Ext.P5 show cause notice proposing to recover the amount and to bar one increment without cumulative effect. To that show cause notice petitioner filed Ext.P6 reply but however by Ext.P7, the proposal in Ext.P5 was confirmed. He filed Ext.P8 appeal before the first respondent and also sought expeditious disposal of Ext.P9 representation. He also contends that in the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent has passed Ext.P10 resolution to recover the amount from the Convener. Therefore, according to the petitioner the proposal to recover the amount from him is premature and illegal. WPC.No. 35097/09 :2 : 3. Ext.P7 being the culmination of a disciplinary proceeding, these are matters for the appellate authority to consider.Having regard to the pendency of Ext.P8 appeal before the first respondent, I think that it is only appropriate for the first respondent to take a decision on Ext.P8. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P8 with notice to the petitioner and pas orders thereon. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is directed that in the meanwhile the recovery of advance, allegedly received by the petitioner, as ordered in Ext.P7, shall be kept in abeyance. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before respondents 1 and 2 for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 35097/09 :3 :