IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2008 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 17209 of 2003(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- C.K.RAPPAI, (RETIRED SPECIAL VILLAGE OFFICER), S/O. C.R.KOCHAPPU, CHITTILAPPILLY, KUNJAPPU HOUSE, LALOOR DESOM, ARANATTUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL, ADV. SRI.B.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. 5. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R), THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/02/2008,THE COURT ON 17/03/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO. 2509/2003 IN W.P.(C). NO. 17209/2003-W DISMISSED 17/03/2008. SD/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE KERALA VILLAGE MANNUAL ENUMERATES DUTIES OF VILLAGE OFFICER. EXT.P1.A: COPY OF THE KERALA VILLAGE MANNUAL ENUMERATES DUTIES OF VILLAGE ASSISTANT. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. SS1-18800/1999-1 DTD. 18/05/99 ISSUED BY R3. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES NO. SS1-18800/99-1 WITH STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS ISSUED R3. TO VILLAGE OFFICER K.N. RAVEENDRAN DTD. 26/08/99. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY VILLAGE OFFICER RAVEENDRAN AGAINST EXT. P.3. BEFORE R3. ON 16/09/99. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES NO. SS1-18800/99-2 WITH STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS ISSUED BY R3 AGAINST THE PETITIONER DTD. 26/08/1999. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R.3. ON 17/09/99. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE RECOVERY LEDGER NO. 39/98 OF PULLAZHY VILLAGE. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. SS1-18800/99 DTD. 06/1/1999 ISSUED BY R.3. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R2. ON 04/12/99. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. LR D2-1606/2000/D. DIS. DTD. 26/02/2001 ISSUED BY ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R.1. DTD. 05/04/2001 EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O. (RT). NO. 73/03/RD DTD. 10/01/2003 ISSUED BY R.1. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. P.N.Ravindran, J. =============== W.P(C).No.17209 of 2003 ================ Dated this the 17th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner has in this writ petition challenged Ext.P8 order dated 6.11.1999 issued by the District Collector, Thrissur imposing on him the punishment of barring three increments with cumulative effect for a period of three years, Ext.P10 order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Land Revenue on 26.2.2001 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P8 and Ext.P12 order dated 10.1.2003 passed by the State Government rejecting the review petition filed by the petitioner from Ext.P10. 2. While the petitioner was working as Village Assistant in Pullazhi Village, he was placed under suspension as per Ext.P2 proceedings dated 18.5.1999 issued by the District Collector, Thrissur, under Rule 10(1)(a) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the "Rules", for short. Along with the petitioner, Sri.K.N.Ravindran, the Village Officer of Pullazhi Village was also WP(C) 17209/03 -: 2 :- placed under suspension. Thereafter, Ext.P5 memo of charges dated 26.8.1999 was issued and served on the petitioner by the District Collector, Thrissur. By Ext.P5, the petitioner was called upon to show cause why disciplinary proceedings should not be taken against him as contemplated under the rules. The charges levelled against the petitioner in Ext.P5 memo of charges read as follows: "That you Sri.C.K.Rappai while holding the post of Village Assistant of Pullazhy Village committed the following irregularities. 1) You have not taken any action in most of the revenue recovery cases involving huge demands forwarded by the Tahsildar, Thrissur. This action shows your willful omission of duty and disobedience of the orders of superiors. 2) You have purposefully mislead the Village Officer for unlawful action by suppressing the fact that the defaulters were not available in the Village. This exhibits blatant dereliction of duty, disobedience of the orders of the superiors and cheating Government by you." 3. On receipt of Ext.P5 memo of charges, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 reply dated 17.9.1999. Thereafter, the WP(C) 17209/03 -: 3 :- petitioner was given personal hearing on 3.11.1999 as requested by the petitioner in Ext.P6. The District Collector thereafter issued Ext.P8 proceedings dated 6.11.1999 imposing on the petitioner the punishment of barring three increments with cumulative effect for a period of three years. Aggrieved by Ext.P8, the petitioner filed Ext.P9 appeal under Rule 23 of the Rules before the Land Revenue Commissioner. By Ext.P10 order passed on 26.2.2001 after hearing the petitioner, the said appeal was dismissed. The review petition filed by the petitioner before the State Government was rejected by Ext.P12. Hence, this writ petition challenging Exts.P8, P10 and P12 orders. 4. I heard Sri.N.P.Samuel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.Sandesh Raja, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the charges levelled against the petitioner in Ext.P5 memo of charges are vague and that the charges are not tenable in the light of Ext.P1 and Ext.P1 (a). The learned counsel for the petitioner contended with reference to Ext.P1 that it is the duty of the Village Officer to recover the arrears of tax and other dues under the Kerala WP(C) 17209/03 -: 4 :- Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 and that the Village Assistant's duty is only to assist the Village Officer to collect arrears of tax and other dues. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Village Officer to whom Ext.P3 memo of charges was issued has not stated in his reply statement evidenced by Ext.P4 that the petitioner did not assist him in the discharge of his duties and therefore, the charges levelled against the petitioner in Ext.P5 are not tenable. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that the charges in Ext.P5 are not vague and that the petitioner had after understanding the charges levelled against him submitted Ext.P6 reply wherein he had no case that the charges are vague or that he is not in a position to answer the charges as they are vague. The learned Government Pleader submitted with reference to Ext.P6, the reply statement submitted by the petitioner to Ext.P5 memo of charges that the petitioner had submitted his reply after understanding the allegations against him and that the petitioner has in Ext.P6 dealt with the allegations levelled against him in the statement of allegations of misconduct forming part of WP(C) 17209/03 -: 5 :- Ext.P5. 6. I have considered the rival contentions. The sum and substance of the charges levelled against the petitioner in Ext.P5 is that he deliberately failed to serve revenue recovery notices on the defaulters and that a large number of revenue recovery cases were pending in the Village Office without any action. The appellate authority has in Ext.P10 order considered the charges levelled against the petitioner as well as the Village Officer and upheld the finding of the District Collector that there was dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner and also disobedience of the orders issued by the superior officers. The State Government has in Ext.P12 order which was also passed after hearing the petitioner taken note of the fact that the petitioner is a native of Pullazhi Village and was aware of the details of the defaulters living in the locality. The State Government further noticed in Ext.P12 that as the petitioner was from the same Village, he was entrusted with the duty to serve notices under the Revenue Recovery Act on the defaulters with a view to collect the dues. The State Government had also noticed that the petitioner deliberately left the notices unserved and also WP(C) 17209/03 -: 6 :- gave misleading information to the Village Officer by reporting that the defaulters named in the memo of charges had left the place after alienating their properties. The State Government had taken note of the said conduct of the petitioner, who admittedly is a native of Pullazhi Village where he was working as Village Assistant in coming to the conclusion that he does not deserve any sympathy and that no grounds exist to interfere with the orders passed by the District Collector and the Additional Commissioner of Land Revenue. 7. In my considered opinion, there is no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner that the charges levelled against him in Ext.P5 are vague. The petitioner had after understanding the charges in Ext.P5 submitted Ext.P6 reply. Ext.P6 reply discloses that he had answered the charges against him with pointed reference to the defaulters named in Ext.P5. A reading of Ext.P5 also discloses that the defaulters had left the locality. As noticed by the State Government in Ext.P12, the conduct of the petitioner, who belongs to the very same Village where he was working as Village Assistant, in giving misleading information to the Village Officer that the defaulters have left the WP(C) 17209/03 -: 7 :- locality, does not entitle him to any relief in this writ petition. After all, as noticed by the State Government, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is a minor penalty of barring three increments with cumulative effect for a period of three years. The findings entered by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the State Government are in no way perverse and they do not warrant interference. The petitioner was heard before the punishment was imposed on him. He was also heard by the appellate authority and by the State Government. It was after following the procedure prescribed in the Rules that the petitioner was punished. No infraction of the Rules has been alleged in the writ petition. The charge levelled against the petitioner is also not vague. There is hence no merit in the challenge to Exts.P8, P10 and P12. In the result, the original petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 11/3