IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 34069 of 2003(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V.K.OUSEPH, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (RTD.) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, VAZHAKALA HOUSE, MELOOR, CHALAKUDY. BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF, SRI.P.M.KUNJIMOIDEENKUTTY, SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH, SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN, SMT.K.A.CIJILA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, IRRIGATION, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION, TRIVANDRUM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUDHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.34069/2003-E: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE GPO. NO. P. 06/01/G/53768713 DTD. 28/05/01. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE GPO NO. G. 536768713/DA2/104599 DTD. 01/07/03. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGE AND STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DTD. 06/04/98. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 22/07/2000 BY THE R.2. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 12/08/00. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION. NO. A3/9480/2001 DTD. 25/01/02. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 02/05/02 BEFORE THE R.2. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 34069 OF 2003 E -------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P3 memo of charges and all further proceedings pursuant to the same. He seeks a direction to pay the pensionary benefits to him as per Ext.P2 Gratuity Payment Order with interest. Petitioner was a Draftsman First Grade. Proceedings were initiated against him and others alleging that loss is caused to the Government. An enquiry was held. It was found that the petitioner was also liable in a sum of Rs.77,406/=. The disciplinary proceedings have been finalised. Thereafter, Ext.P5 notice was issued to the petitioner relying on the Enquiry Report and the amount fixed against the petitioner is seen to be Rs.77,406/=. Ext.P7 is a direction to the Chief Engineer with copy to the petitioner. Therein, it is stated that the case against the petitioner and others was not finalised. Petitioner approached the Chief Engineer with a petition. WPC.34069/03 2 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Counsel for petitioner would submit that the petitioner was only a First Grade Draftsman and he has prepared only an estimate, and having regard to the duties, the petitioner cannot be mulcted with any liability. 3. An enquiry was held against the petitioner and it was found that the petitioner also is liable. The enquiry report is not produced. This Court is not concerned with the merits of the findings of the Enquiry Officer under Article 226. In the Counter Affidavit, it is also stated that the enquiry report revealed among other things that the basic defect of the scheme is in the preparation of estimate and design as there is some contradiction in the estimate originated in the Minor Irrigation (Investigation) Section, Chalakkudy that the pressure strength of pipe in the estimate was provided as 4 Kg./cm 2 while it was 6 Kg/Cm2 in the data attached with the estimate. Petitioner was working as First Grade Draftsman of Minor Irrigation WPC.34069/03 3 (Investigation) Section, chalakkudy. There is no reply affidavit filed. In such circumstances, I find that there is no merit in the Writ Petition and it is dismissed. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.