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. 1456 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP.2080/2000 Dated 15/03/2006 .................... APPELLANT(S): ADDITIONAL 2ND PETITIONER --------------------------------------- SAROJINI, W/O.LATE T.K.RAGHAVAN, THEYYAMPADIKUZHIYIL, VALAYANNUR, P.O.CHERUPPA, VIA MAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVT., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS -R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 1456 OF 2007 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The original petitioner Sri.T.K. Raghavan died during the pendency of the Original Petition. His wife got herself impleaded as the second petitioner. She has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The brief facts of the case are the following: 2. The appellant's husband stood charge sheeted by the competent authority for the misconduct of registering falsely suo motu tenancy cases under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, relying on forged documents. The matter was referred by the Government for enquiry to the Vigilance Tribunal, Kozhikode. The said Tribunal, after an elaborate enquiry, found the appellant's husband guilty of the charges levelled against him and recommended to reduce his pension by one-third, for a period of ten years. W.A.NO. 1456/2007 2 The Government accepted the report, but decided to withdraw one-third of the pension permanently. Proposing the said action under Rule 3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules, notice was issued to the husband of the appellant. His representation was considered and the Government confirmed the proposal and ordered to withhold one-third of his pension permanently. Ext.P8 is the said order. Challenging Ext.P8, the Original Petition was filed. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit supporting Ext.P8 order. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, interfered with the impugned order to the extent it directed withholding of one-third of the pension permanently. It was ordered that withholding of one-third of the pension shall have effect only for a period of ten years from the date of retirement, as suggested by the Vigilance Tribunal in Ext.P5 enquiry report. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant, wife of the original petitioner, has preferred this Writ Appeal. 3. According to the appellant, since no pecuniary loss has been caused to the Government, no action is possible under Rule 3, Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. It is also submitted that the finding of guilt against her husband made by the Vigilance Tribunal is not sustainable. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the pattayams, which W.A.NO. 1456/2007 3 were issued based on the suo motu cases registered by the original petitioner were not cancelled and no action was taken against the Village Officer or the Tahsidar concerned. Therefore, the action against the husband of the appellant alone is not justified. 4. The contention that if no pecuniary loss is caused, action under Rule 3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules cannot be taken is plainly untenable: see the decisions in Union of India and Others v. B. Dev (1998)7 SCC 691, Jayarajan v. State of Kerala, 2001(3) K.L.T. 929 and Raveendran Nair v. State of Kerala, 2007(1) K.L.T. 605 (F.B.). 5. If the original petitioner is found guilty, his pension can be reduced. Whether action against persons equally guilty was taken or not is not relevant while considering the validity of the action taken against the original petitioner. The same is the case with the alleged non-cancellation of the pattayams also. If the original petitioner is found guilty, he is liable for action. In this case, the Vigilance Tribunal, which followed adversory procedure and before which lawyers had appeared on both sides, conducted the enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice and based on the evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusion W.A.NO. 1456/2007 4 against the appellant's husband. They are findings of fact which cannot be disturbed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.A.NO. 1456/2007 5 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.A.NO.1456/2007 JUDGMENT 6th January, 2010 W.A.NO. 1456/2007 6