IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3227 of 2011(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.D.YOHANNAN, S/O. DEVASSY, AGED 47 YRS, RESIDING AT THONITHURA HOUSE, NEAR ST.THOMAS CHURCH, VADAKKE ANGADI, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN SRI.M.VIVEK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF RATIONING, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No. 3227 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 1st February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was appointed as ARD No.20 of Aluva Taluk. He was issued Ext.P1 charge memo containing six allegations of irregularities. On receipt of the charge memo, petitioner filed Ext.P2 reply denying the allegations. He was heard and finally Ext.P3 order was issued and on the findings that irregularities were proved, his appointment was terminated by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P4 appeal filed before the 3rd respondent was rejected by Ext.P5 order. 2. This order also shows that the petitioner was heard and that the petitioner could not substantiate his plea of innocence. Ext.P6 revision filed before the Government also was rejected by Ext.P7 order of rejection. Ext.P7 also shows that the Government have appreciated the case of the petitioner and adverted to each of the allegations and the case pleaded by the petitioner and it was thereafter found that the case did not merit interference. It is challenging Exts.P3, P5 and W.P (C) No.3227 of 2011 2 P7, the writ petition is filed. 3. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that a detailed enquiry was not held into the allegations. A reading of the impugned orders itself show that it was after issuing show cause notice and considering the reply filed by the petitioner, the impugned orders were issued. These orders were also preceded by an opportunity of hearing. Reading of the impugned orders do not give me an impression that the findings arrived at concurrently by the authorities are vitiated for any reason. Therefore I am not persuaded to interfere with this writ petition. Writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge