IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 21ST MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 10814 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.G. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, RETIRED SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LRS), 'NISHA', EAST GATE, THEKKENADA P.O., VAIKOM-686 142. BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE (D) DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,TRIVANDRUM 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), O/O. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), P.B.NO.5607, M.G.ROAD, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, VAIKOM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 10814/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.3.3.08. P2. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.6.7.07. P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.26.9.07. P4. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.22.11.96. P5. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.No. 6027/2000 OF THIS COURT. P6. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.24.7.2000. P7. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.No. 23475/2000. P8. COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD.25.5.04. P9. COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.24.9.04. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 10814 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 10th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a retired Tahsildar of the Department of Revenue of the Government of Kerala. After retirement, the petitioner was served with Ext.P8 show cause notice directing him to show cause why action should not be taken against the petitioner under Rule 59(b) of Part III of the KSR for reducing an amount of ` 100/- from his monthly pension, since the petitioner's service was not thoroughly satisfactory. The allegation therein was that while the petitioner was holding the post of Tahsildar, Devikulam, from 5.4.1993 to 30.5.1996, he failed to take prompt action in giving a liability certificate in respect of Sri.T.G.Radhakrishnan, who was a predecessor-in-office of the petitioner, who expired on 25.2.1995 in a motor accident. The petitioner filed Ext.P9 explanation stating that in March, 1996, general election was declared and, therefore, the petitioner was busy with the election duties and as such, he could not attend to the issue of liability certificate in respect of the deceased Sri.T.G.Radhakrishnan. By Ext.P2, the proposal in Ext.P8 was confirmed and an amount of ` 100/- has been reduced from the pension of the petitioner under Rule 59(b) of Part III of KSR. The above action is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs; w.p.c.10814/08 2 “1) call for the records connected with the case; 2) declare that Ext.P2 to the extend it applies to the petitioner and the consequential orders at Ext.P3 and P1 are illegal, wrong, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3) issue a Writ of certiorari or any other writ order or direction quashing Exhibit P2 to the extend it applies to the petitioner and the consequential orders at Ext.P3 and P1.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent supporting the impugned orders. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The only question to be considered in this writ petition is as to whether the respondents were right in reducing ` 100/- from the monthly pension of the petitioner under Rule 59(b) of Part III of KSR. The facts are admitted. The petitioner was the Tahsildar, Devikulam from 22.3.1995 to 30.5.1996. It is true that on 25.2.1995 Sri.T.G.Radhakrishnan, a predecessor-in-office of the petitioner, died in a motor accident. It is also not disputed before me that the liability certificate of Sri.T.G.Radhakrishnan was not issued in time. Admittedly, there was a delay of 14 months in issuing the same. In Ext.P9 the explanation given by the petitioner is very vague. He does not refer to any dates, like the date when the file came before him, the date when he disposed of the file, when the certificate was issued etc. The file was pending eversince the death of Sri.T.G.Radhakrishnan on 25.2.1995. The petitioner was in that office from 22.3.1995 till 30.5.1996. No reasonable explanation is forthcoming for the delay of w.p.c.10814/08 3 14 months in releasing the liability certificate of late Radhakrishnan. From Ext.P2 I find that although an opportunity of personal hearing was granted, the petitioner did not appear for the personal hearing, whereas the other two persons, who were also proceeded against for delay in issue of the certificate, had in fact appeared and they were heard. In such circumstances, I am unable to come to a finding that the decision of the Government in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner's service was not thoroughly satisfactory is in any way perverse or illegal. If that be so, the reduction of pension under Rule 59(b) of Part III of the KSR cannot be said to be in any way perverse or illegal. As such, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Since there was a stay in this writ petition, the petitioner was continued to be paid full pension. The respondents shall recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner only in easy instalments from the petitioner's monthly pension. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.10814/08 4