IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 17789 of 2009(P) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.SURENDRAN, AGED 54 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, AGRICULTURE, ALAPUZHA, RESIDING AT TC 26/1768, SREE GANAPATH, UPPALAM ROAD, STATUTE, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI SRI.R.ANIL SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED SRI.JOSEPH ALEX SRI.V.B.SUJESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARAVIND K.BABU FOR R1 AND R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 17789 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Assistant Executive Engineer under the Agricultural Department. Certain allegations regarding corruption led to the registration of a crime against the petitioner by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention Corruption Act,1988. Subsequently that was numbered as C.C.No.53/2003 before the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram and he was the 3rd accused therein. In the said case petitioner was convicted for the aforesaid offences read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code along with the other accused persons. Based entirely on the said Ext.P1 judgment convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.75,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo W.P.(C) NO. 17789 OF 2009 2 simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months for offences under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Ext.P2 order dated 19.6.2009 was passed removing the petitioner from the service. It is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order that this writ petition has been filed. 2. While admitting this writ petition an interim stay of of implementation of Ext.P2 was passed by this Court and by virtue of said interim order petitioner had been continuing in service. He attained the age of superannuation during September, 2009. During the pendency of this writ petition the appeal preferred by the petitioner against Ext.P1 judgment as Criminal Appeal No. 2248/08 was allowed by this Court as per Ext.P3 judgment. The petitioner was found not guilty for the offences under Section 13(I)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly he was acquitted. 2nd accused in C.C. 53/2003 was also convicted and imposed with a similar sentence. Consequently, the 2nd accused who was working as W.P.(C) NO. 17789 OF 2009 3 Technical Assistant under the Agricultural Department was also removed from service. Against the order of removal from service she had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C). No.17454/2009 and during the pendency of the said writ petition Criminal Appeal No.2208/2008 filed by her against the conviction and sentence. In fact, it is a common judgment as regards the petitioner herein and the said 2nd accused as is obvious from Ext.P3 judgment. Taking note of this said judgment whereby she was acquitted and also on the fact that the order of removal from service was imposed on her entirely based on the conviction as per Ext.P1 judgment order of removal passed against the second accused was set aside by Ext.P4 judgment. 3. In the light of the aforesaid undisputed facts the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P2 order of removal from service passed against the petitioner is liable to be set aside in the light of Ext.P4 taking note of Ext.P3 judgment. Indisputably, Ext.P2 order was passed entirely based on Ext.P1 judgment whereby the petitioner W.P.(C) NO. 17789 OF 2009 4 was convicted and sentenced. It is also not in dispute that the said judgment was set aside as per Ext.P3 judgment and the petitioner was acquitted of the offences charged against him. Evidently, the petitioner herein and the said 2ndaccused Thanuja, were removed from service by Ext.P2 order based on their conviction and sentence as per Ext.P1 judgment. Though they challenged Ext.P1 judgment separately before this Court the aforesaid Criminal appeals were jointly heard and they were acquitted as per Ext.P3 common judgment. It was taking in to account the fact that the said 2nd accused was removed from service entirely based on Ext.P1 judgment that the order dated 19.6.2009 (Ext.P2 herein) was set aside as per Ext.P4 judgment to the extent it ordered her removal from service, in the light of Ext.P3 judgment. In view of the indisputable facts obtained in this case from the records I see no reason to consider the petitioner's case in a different perspective. The learned Government could not make out any distinction between the case of the petitioner and that of the said Thanuja. In W.P.(C) NO. 17789 OF 2009 5 these circumstances, considering Ext.P3 order of this Court and also the fact that Ext.P2 was passed entirely based on Ext.P1 judgment and also Ext.P4 judgment I am of the view that Ext.P2 order dated 19.06.2009 is liable to be set aside and accordingly, Ext.P2 is set aside. This Writ Petition is allowed as above. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. mns