IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 1921 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15634/2009 Dated 08/06/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ O.P.RADHAKIRSHNAN, DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, O/O.THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LA (RAILWAY - TANOOR - GURUVAYOOR) RESIDING AT: VIPIN VIHAR, EDAPAL PO, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.1921 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 6th January, 2010. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed by him, challenging Ext.P4 order of the Government, imposing a penalty of barring one increment without cumulative effect and also Ext.P6 order of the Government, dismissing the review petition filed by him, against Ext.P4. 2. The allegation against the appellant was that while he was working as Village Officer of Vilayur Village of Ottappalam Taluk, he assessed the value of 1 acre 39 cents of land in Survey No.15/1 of that Village belonging to one Sri.Babu, as Rs.21 lakhs and accordingly sent a recommendation to the Tahsildar to enable the owner of the property to obtain a solvency certificate, in order to participate in the abkari auction. Later, it was found that the valuation was excessive and unrelated to the real market WA NO.1921/09 2 value. It was also found that the valuation was made without making any reference to the sale of properties that took place in the area recently. So, the appellant was served with Ext.P1 notice to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. He submitted Ext.P2 reply. Practically, he admitted that he assessed the value of the property without reference to the sale of properties which took place in the area recently. The Government considered the reply of the petitioner and imposed the aforementioned punishment of barring of one increment without cumulative effect, by Ext.P4. The appellant filed Ext.P5 review petition seeking review of that order. That was dismissed by Ext.P6. So, as mentioned earlier, the writ petition was filed, challenging Exts.P4 and P6. 3. The learned Single Judge took the view that the punishment was imposed following the due procedure and after affording the appellant/petitioner an opportunity to represent his case. Therefore, it was held that no ground has been made out warranting interference with the orders impugned. In that view of the matter, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence this writ WA NO.1921/09 3 appeal. 4.We heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel pointed out that the appellant was never told what was the basis of the finding of the Government that the property was under-valued. He pointed out that for the first time, in a statement filed before this court, it was revealed that the property was found to have only a value of Rs.15 lakhs, by the audit party. Therefore, the orders impugned were vitiated, it is submitted. But we notice that in Ext.P1, there is a specific reference that the appellant assessed the value of the property without referring to any transactions of land in the area, which took place recently. The said allegation was admitted by the appellant/ petitioner in Ext.P2. Therefore, we find nothing wrong with the view taken by the Government that the petitioner has wrongly assessed the value of the property as Rs.21 lakhs. In view of the said lapse, only a minor penalty was imposed on him. As correctly noticed by the learned Single Judge, there was no procedural irregularities in imposing the penalty. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the punishment imposed on the WA NO.1921/09 4 appellant, or the judgment under appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. tgs K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.1921 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 6th January, 2010.