IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 16TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23567 of 2011(U) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ TOMY GEORGE, S/O. GEORGE, AGED 55 YEARS, THURUTHIYIL HOUSE, BHARANANGANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM-685 578. BY ADV. SRI.JEEVAN MATHEW MANAYANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF LAND REVENUE, MUSEUM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PAINAVU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER, CARDAMOM, SPRING VALLEY P.O., KUMILI, IDUKKI-685 509. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1,R2 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. L.G. SURESH BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.23567/2011 U APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.14/05/1993. P2: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MINISTER FOR REVENUE DTD. 23/04/2011. P3: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD. 24/04/2011. P4: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 18/06/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MINISTER FOR REVENUE. P5: COPY OF FURTHER REMINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD. 20/06/2011. P6: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 20/06/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD. 2/07/2011 TO THE PETITIONER. P8: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DTD.13/07/2011. P9: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 23567 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT While working as U.D Clerk in Assistant Settlement Office, Kumaly, the petitioner was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 order dated 14.5.1993. Evidently, he was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. Admittedly, memorandum of charges and statement of allegations were served on the petitioner. It is submitted that the disciplinary proceedings are yet to be completed. However, as ordered in Ext.P1, the petitioner had been paid the subsistence allowance under Rule 55 of Part I Kerala Service Rules till July, 2002. Thereafter, the payment of subsistence allowance was discontinued. The office of the Assistant Settlement Officer wherein the petitioner was working was abolished on 1.8.2002. In fact, it was not functioning till 31.3.2008. Admittedly, during the said period, the petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance. Ext.P8 would reveal that the petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance from 1.8.2002 to 31.4.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even thereafter, the subsistence allowance is not being paid to the petitioner. On W.P.(C) NO.23567 of 2011 2 being aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondents in discontinuing the payment of subsistence allowance, the petitioner approached the authorities with request to continue to pay the subsistence allowance. In reply to Ext.P6 petition dated 20.6.2011 submitted by the petitioner, he received Ext.P7 from the first respondent. The third respondent also gave a reply as per Ext.P8. A perusal of Ext.P8 would reveal that the office in which the petitioner was working at the time of his suspension was not functioning from 1.8.2002 to 31.3.2008. As already noticed hereinbefore, it would further reveal that in fact, up to 31.4.2011, the subsistence allowance in tune with Rule 55 of Part I Kerala Service Rules was not paid to him. Even thereafter, there is no payment of subsistence allowance. In the said circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to approach the first respondent through Ext.P9 representation. It is dated 21.7.2011. Despite the receipt of Ext.P9 representation, no action was taken to redress the grievances of the petitioner. It is in the said circumstances that this Writ Petition has been filed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. 3. Obviously, Ext.P1 would reveal that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 14.5.1993 and the Assistant Settlement Officer, W.P.(C) NO.23567 of 2011 3 Kumaly was directed to implement the order with immediate effect. The said order also carried a direction to disburse the subsistence allowance to the petitioner in terms of Rule 55 Part I of the KSR. Till the said office was abolished on 1.8.2002, the petitioner was being paid the subsistence allowance in tune with the direction in Ext.P1. From 1.8.2002, it was not being paid to the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 14.5.1993 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. However, even after the long lapse of more than 18 years, the disciplinary proceedings are yet to be concluded. There is nothing on record which would reveal as to why and under what circumstances the disciplinary proceedings have not yet reached a logical conclusion. Whatever be the reasons, I am of the view that there cannot be any justification for not completing and concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Taking into account the fact that the petitioner was placed under suspension as early as on 14.5.1993 and he is due to retire from service on 31.3.2012, the authorities competent among the respondents shall take appropriate action to conclude the disciplinary proceedings on or before 31.1.2012. It is ordered accordingly. In view of the admitted pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the petitioner is entitled to receive subsistence allowance in terms of Rule 55 of Part I KSR. As long as the W.P.(C) NO.23567 of 2011 4 petitioner is under suspension, the respondents are bound to pay the subsistence allowance in terms of Rule 55 of Part I KSR. In the light of Ext.P1 as also the provisions under Rule 55 of Part I of the KSR, the respondents cannot legally dispute his entitlement to receive subsistence allowance. As per Ext.P8, the petitioner was informed by the third respondent that he has taken up the matter before the second respondent. However, no follow up action was taken so far. Even on receipt of Ext.P9, the first respondent also did not take any step for disbursement of the subsistence allowance to the petitioner. In the said circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a further direction to the respondents to take appropriate action for the disbursement of subsistence allowance to the petitioner from 1.8.2002, expeditiously. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.23567 of 2011 5 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.23567 of 2011 6