IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2011 / 29TH ASWINA 1933 WA.No. 695 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.10814/2008 DATED 10/02/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): /PETITIONER. ----------------------------------- M.G.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, RETIRED SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LRS), NISHA, EAST GATE, THEKKENADA P.O, VAIKOM-686 142. BY ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL RESPONDENT(S): / RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE (D) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETRIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL,(A&E), OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), P.B.NO.5607, M.G.ROAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 039. 4. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, VAIKOM-686 141. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, MS.D.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag.CJ. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. .................................................................... W.A. No.695 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 21st day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, Ag.CJ. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge confirming punishment imposed on the appellant by way of reduction of Rs.100/- per month from the pension on account of lapses on his side during his service as Tahsildar. 2. We have heard learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. There is no controversy on facts in as much as the appellant in the last leg of his service was appointed as Tahsildar in Devikulam on 22/03/1995 and he continued there as Tahsildar till 29/05/1996. Thereafter he was transferred to Palakkad, wherefrom he retired on 30/11/1996, i.e. within six months of transfer. On retirement the appellant was W.A.No.695/2011 2 sanctioned eligible pension and after 8 years of retirement, in 2004 the respondents issued show cause notice to the appellant stating that during service as Tahsildar at Devikulam in 1995-96 as stated above, the appellant failed to issue non- liability certificate to the widow of a Tahsildar, who died in service. Even though, the appellant raised objection stating that he had not consciously withheld any clearance certificate and was discharging his duties to the satisfaction of the higher authorities, and was over burdened with election work, the respondents rejected the same and imposed a minor penalty as stated above, which is this reduction of Rs.100/- per month from pension that was challenged before the learned Single Judge, but without success. This Writ Appeal is filed for vacating the impugned judgment and order and for restoring full pension to the appellant. 4. After hearing both sides, what we notice is that during the service of the appellant at Devikulam as Tahsildar for 14 months nobody has complained against his inertia or W.A.No.695/2011 3 injustice in any matter including the non-consideration of application filed by the widow of the deceased Tahsildar. We do not know why the respondents took 8 years to detect the omission and to proceed against the appellant. There are ever so many non-performers at various levels in Government service but there is no provision to take disciplinary action against such persons. What is clear from this case at least is that during the service of a person there is no higher authority monitoring his work and if so, lapses would have been found out in time and action if any could have been taken against the appellant during service or shortly after retirement. There is nothing to indicate that the widow of the deceased Tahsildar ever complained to the District Collector or higher authorities during the service of the appellant that he deliberately delayed issuance of non liability certificate. In our view if the widow had approached the District Collector, he would have ensured that certificate is issued by the appellant without any delay. We, therefore, do not find any justification or even bonafides W.A.No.695/2011 4 in the action initiated against the appellant for the alleged lapses after 8 years of his retirement and orders issued after 11 years of his retirement. Consequently, we allow the Writ Appeal by vacating the judgment of the learned Single Judge, allow the WP(C) by cancelling Ext.P2 order and direct the respondents to restore full eligible pension to the appellant. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) jg