PATHROSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was a Tribal Extension Officer. He moved O.P. No. 27832 of 1999 challenging Ext. P9 memo of charges dated 30.11.1998 to show cause why disciplinary action be not taken against him for dereliction of duty, misappropriation of money etc. The short facts leading to the issuance of the said memo of charges are as follows.

(2.) During the year 1994-95 seven houses were sanctioned by the Project Officer, ITDP, Idukki for 7 beneficiaries at Elamblassery Tribal Settlement in Iddukki Dist. As per the Scheme, the beneficiaries are eligible for the grant for the construction of houses and also 1.5 cubic metre timber for each house at seniorage rate from the Forest Department. Six houses were completed and on the basis of a completion certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer final and last instalment of housing grant was paid on 20.9.1995 to the beneficiaries. After completion of the houses in all respects, and as per the request of the then Tribal Extension Officer, the appellant petitioner, 10.426 cubic metre of timber was allotted to the 7 beneficiaries by the Conservator of Forests, Iddukki. The Divisional Forest Officer had directed the Range Officer to release the timber to the Project Officer, ITDP, Idukki who in turn had authorised the Tribal Extension Officer, the appellant, to receive the same. Appellant, instead of receiving the timber, sent a receipt to the Range Officer authorising one of the beneficiaries, namely, T. Ravi Narayanan, to take delivery of the timber, thereby violated the direction given by the superior officer.

(3.) The appellant was placed under suspension and the matter was referred to the Vigilance Department for investigation. Ext. P5 dated 4.1.1997 is the order by which appellant was placed under suspension. Appellant submitted a detailed representation against the suspension order and sought reinstatement. Since no action was taken he preferred O.P. No. 18233 of 1997, which this Court disposed of on 24.10.1997 directing the Director of Scheduled Tribe Development Department to pass orders on his representation. Without properly considering his application, the same was rejected by order dated 21.11.1997. Aggrieved by the same, appellant preferred an appeal under S.22 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1960. Appeal was rejected by the Government vide its order dated 6.5.1998 without stating any reasons. Appellant then filed O.P.No. 15976 of 1998 challenging the said order, and sought for a direction for reinstatement, which was later withdrawn by the appellant, since he was reinstated in service with effect from 28.11.1998. Appellant later retired from service on 30.11.1998.