IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19473 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- M.G.SIMONKUTTY RETIRED ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D. BUILDING SUB DIVISION, KOLLAM (RESIDING AT MANALOOR, KAIRALI NAGAR K.N.22, T.C.10/66 ,MANNANTHALA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 015. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUBLIC WORKS (F) DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER P.W.D.ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 19473 OF 2010 (H) ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner retired from service as an Assistant Executive Engineer in Public Works Department. While he was an Assistant Engineer, minor penalty proceedings were initiated and he was issued Ext.P1 memo of charges. The irregularities alleged were that he failed to record the executed items of work in the M Book and failed to maintain absolute devotion and integrity to duty. Along with Ext.P1 memo, statement of allegations were also enclosed. Petitioner submitted his explanation, a copy of which is Ext.P2. He was heard in person, and finally by Ext.P9, the 1st respondent imposed a punishment of barring of one increment without cumulative effect. As far as the misconducts alleged against the petitioner is concerned, the finding of the 1st respondent is as follows:- The Chief Engineer (Admn.) as per his letter read as 4th paper above has pointed out that the Assistant Engineer had to record the measurement of the area to be dismantled in the M.Book and Assistant Executive Engineers had to check measure it. After dismantling, a certificate should have been furnished by the Assistant Engineer regarding proper completion of the item. Details of any serviceable items received through the dismantling should also be recorded. He has also WPC No. 19473/2010 :2 : remarked that if there were no safe place to store the material, it should have been handed over to the contractor through a USR. Then only the contractor could be held responsible to the loss and liable to pay the SR value. The Assistant Engineer did not know the physical quantity of tiles and the value likely to be fetched on public auction. Hence, Assistant Engineer, being the custodian of departmental material is responsible to the loss of theft. Government have examined the matter in detail and found that the accused officer committed the offences charged against him. 2. No case of any malafides or procedural irregularities in the matter has been made out or can be found to impugn Ext.P9 order. Then the question is whether the punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct that is proved. Evidently lapses have been found on the part of the petitioner and the punishment imposed is barring of one increment and that too without cumulative effect. This cannot be said to be disproportionate by any stretch of imagination. I am not persuaded to interfere. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp