IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 OP.No. 33051 of 2000(I) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.S.RAJAN S/O. SANKARA MENON AGED 58 ELUMNACKAL HOUSE EROOR SOUTH THRIPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM SRI.K.SETHUNATH RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF RATIONING (SOUTH ZONE) KOTTAYAM. 3. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION KAKKANAD. 4. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KANAYANNOOR MINI CIVIL STATION THRIPUNITHURA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 33051 of 2000(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. S2/664/94 DATED 17.05.1994 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.8.1994 IN O.P. NO. 7819/94 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DCR(S2) 664/94 DATED 21.11.1994. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. CS-5-8519/94 DATED 18.11.1994 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES NO. DCR(S2)664/94 DATED 17.10.1994 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 20.01.1995. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO NO. CS-5-8519/94 DATED 17.6.1995 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATIONS DATED 22.06.1995 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. CS2-590/94 DATED 19.7.1995. EXT.P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. CS2 - 590/94 DATED 25.07.1995. EXT.P11 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DCR(S) 1664/94 DATED 10.6.1996 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P12 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G.O.(Rt) NO. 252/2000/F&CSD DATED, 02.11.2000 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE rhs S.SIRI JAGAN, J ===================== O.P. 33051 of 2000 ===================== Dated this the 19th day of September, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an Authorised Retail Distributor for ration articles at Eroor, Kanayannoor Taluk. On detecting certain irregularities in respect of the conduct of the shop on inspection, the authorisation issued to the petitioner was suspended by Ext.P1 order. The petitioner challenged the suspension order before this Court by filing O.P. No. 7819/1994. By Ext.P2 judgment, this Court quashed that suspension. But therein it was made clear that the authorities are at liberty to take any further action pursuant to the irregularities, if any, detected pursuant to the inspection conducted by the Deputy Controller of Rationing. In tune with the said judgment by Ext.P3 order Ext.P1 suspension order was cancelled. Simultaneously, on allegations of misappropriation of rationed articles, his licence was again suspended by Ext.P4 order pending further enquiry. Thereafter, Ext.P5 charge sheet was issued to the petitioner proposing to cancel his authorisation as a retail distributor. The petitioner filed Ext.P6 explanation disclaiming any responsibility for the alleged O.P. 33051 of 2000 2 irregularities mentioned in Ext.P5. Again another charge memo namely Ext.P7 was issued to which the petitioner filed Ext.P8 reply. It ultimately ended in Ext.P11 order whereby the Deputy Controller of Rationing, Kottayam, imposed on the petitioner, the punishment of cancellation of his authorisation to run the ARD, on a finding that the petitioner was guilty of grave irregularities including misappropriation of ration articles. Petitioner's revision petition before the Government against Ext.P11 order was dismissed by Ext.P12 order. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P11 and P12 orders in this original petition. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been victimised for having brought to the attention of the authorities and the public, irregularities in running the civil supply office, in his capacity has the Secretary of the All Kerala Retail Ration Dealers Association. The petitioner would submit that he has not misappropriated any ration articles. He has been charged with making false entries in the account books without corresponding entries in the ration cards, misappropriating those ration articles. Apart from that other irregularities were also found against the petitioner. The petitioner contends that if at all, the failure to make entries in O.P. 33051 of 2000 3 the ration cards can only be an omission, in so far as the petitioner was managing the ARD alone and when there was rush of card holders for purchasing ration articles he may have omitted to make entries in the ration cards. He would submit that the very fact that the authorities have taken the trouble of verifying ration cards of individual card holders would itself shows victimisation. He would further submit that he was not given an opportunity to peruse ration cards relied upon by the 3rd respondent. He also relies on Ext.P2 judgment whereby his earlier suspension was set aside. The petitioner therefore submits that Exts.P11 and P12 orders are totally perverse and liable to be set aside. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent refusing the contentions of the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader would point out that the authorities have verified 424 ration cards and found that in the cards there were no entries corresponding to entries in the petitioners account books in respect of those cards, which would lead to irresistible conclusion that the petitioner had in fact misappropriated those ration articles entered in his account books as having distributed to the card holders. The learned Government Pleader points out that in Ext.P2 judgment, liberty O.P. 33051 of 2000 4 was given to the Deputy Controller of Rationing to take further action pursuant to irregularities if any detected pursuant to inspection conducted by him, which only was done by the impugned orders. The Government Pleader would therefore support the impugned orders. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. In the explanations submitted by the petitioner himself he more or less admits that the ration cards do not contain entries corresponding to entries in his account books in respect of the cards as held by the 3rd respondent. His explanation is that perhaps in view of heavy rush he may have omitted to make entires in the cards. I am unable to countenance such a contention. The officers of the supply office had verified 424 cards in which entries where found absent corresponding to entries in the petitioner's account books. Such absence of entries in large number of ration cards can by no stretch of imagination be attributed to mere omission on the part of the petitioner. The fact that there was omissions is further clear from the fact that according to the petitioner himself, he has taken the trouble to get letters from some of the card holders to the effect that they had received ration articles corresponding to the entries in the petitioner's O.P. 33051 of 2000 5 account books, although there were no entries in their cards. The very fact that the petitioner has obtained such letters from the card holders is suspicious. The card holders cannot know what are the entries in the petitioner's account books. Without knowing that it is beyond comprehension as to how the card holders can issue letters to the petitioner to the effect that although there were no entries in their cards they had received ration articles. That being so I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner that the absence of entries in the cards were only omissions. Of course the petitioner has got a contention that he was not given a chance to peruse the cards. But the petitioner has no case that he had asked for a chance to peruse the cards. On the other hand he frankly admitted in his explanation that such entries are missing in the cards and attributed the same to a omission on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, I am satisfied that the respondents have with adequate material proved the fact that the petitioner had misappropriated ration articles without supplying the same to the card holders, by making false entries in his account books. As such the finding of guilt in Exts.P11 and P12 orders cannot be faulted in any way. The learned Counsel for the petitioner makes a fervent O.P. 33051 of 2000 6 plea for reducing the punishment on the ground that punishment of cancellation of the authorisation is too harsh disproportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled against him. About that also I am not satisfied. Misappropriation of ration articles the worst kind of misconduct an authorised dealer of ration articles can commit. In fact it is for preventing such misappropriation that elaborate procedures are prescribed for running ration shops. As such I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to any relief in this original petition. Accordingly, I uphold the impugned orders and dismiss the original petition. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs