IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 31673 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.S. SREEKUMAR, SUB REGISTRAR, ETTUMANOOR (RETIRED) RESIDING AT CHANDRAKANTHAM, APTGC SKYLINE, ORCHID I, AYSWARYA LINE, MUTTAMBALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM-4. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CGUEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, TAXES (E) DEPARTMENT (REGISTRATION WING), KERALA GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 4. DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), KOTTAYAM. 5. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&F), KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.31673 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 28th November, 2008. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.K.A.Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is a pensioner. He retired from service on 30.1.2007 while he was working as Sub Registrar at Ettumanoor. While the petitioner was in service as Sub Registrar at Ettumannoor, the District Registrar, Kottayam, conducted an inspection on 5.10.2006 based on certain complaints about the working of the Ettumannoor Sub Registry. The District Registrar noticed very serious irregularities in the functioning of the Sub Registrar's office at Ettumannoor. After the petitioner retired from service, the Government issued Ext.P4 show cause notice dated 26.3.2008 calling upon him to show cause why his pension should not be reduced by Rs.50/= per mensem permanently, in terms of Rule 59(b) of Part III of the K.S.R. The petitioner W.P.(C) No.31673 of 2008 2 submitted Ext.P6 reply. By Ext.P8 order passed on 24.7.2008, the Government considered the reply submitted by the petitioner and decided to reduce his pension by Rs.50/= per mensem permanently. Pursuant to Ext.P8, the Inspector General of Registration issued Ext.P9 order dated 18.8.2008 reducing the pension drawn by the petitioner, by Rs.50/= per mensem. By Ext.P10 order dated 5.9.2008, the Accountant General informed the Sub Treasury officer, Kottayam, that the petitioner's pension stands reduced by Rs.50/= per mensem. Exts.P8, P9 and P10 are under challenge in this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that there was no material before the Government to come to the conclusion that the petitioner's service was not satisfactory. The petitioner also relies on Ext.P11 series of Government orders to contend that in similar cases, the Government have withdrawn or recalled the proposal to reduce pension. W.P.(C) No.31673 of 2008 3 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. As directed by this Court, the learned Government Pleader has made available a copy of the report submitted by the District Registrar, Kottayam, referred to in Ext.P4. The report reveals very serious irregularities in the functioning of the Sub Registrar's Office at Ettumannoor, during the period when the petitioner was the Sub Registrar. A reading of the report would indicate that there was total lack of supervision and that the petitioner was also negligent in the discharge of his duties. It was based on the report submitted by the District Registrar that the Government issued Ext.P4 show cause notice. Though the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 reply, the explanation offered by him did not find acceptance at the hands of the Government. Rule 59(a) of Part III of the K.S.R. states that full pension admissible under the Rules is not to be given as a matter of course, or unless the service rendered by the pensioner had really been approved. Under Rule 59(b) of Part III of the K.S.R, if the service of the W.P.(C) No.31673 of 2008 4 pensioner has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the Government may make such reduction in the pension as it thinks proper. In the instant case, there were abundant materials before the Government to show that petitioner's service was not satisfactory. On a reading of the report referred to in Ext.P4, I am also persuaded to agree with the stand taken by the Government that the petitioner's service was not satisfactory, when he was the Sub Registrar of Ettumannoor. In such circumstances, Ext.P8 order passed by the Government, affirming its provisional decision cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. In the light of the facts disclosed by the District Registrar, the Government was right in holding that the petitioner's service was not thoroughly satisfactory. In these circumstances, I am not persuaded to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no material based on which the Government could have come to the conclusion that the petitioner's service was not satisfactory. W.P.(C) No.31673 of 2008 5 For the reasons stated above, I hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The Writ Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE nj.