M.K.MOHAMMED ALI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to release the DCRG amount of Rs.10,15,740/- due to him under Annexures A2 and A2(a) proceedings with penal interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The facts which led to the filing of the original application, in brief, are as under;

(2.) The first departmental proceedings was based on Annexure A4 Government order dated 16.9.2017, the basis for which was a news paper report that, the petitioner had, on 23.4.2017, misbehaved with three DYFI activists, the youth wing of the ruling party. The incident was alleged to have taken place at the office of the Inspector of Police, Pandalam. The second departmental proceedings was initiated by the District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta on the allegation that, in spite of a specific direction by the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Pathanamthitta to produce the petitioner's motor car bearing KL-26A- 6471 before the court, in connection with the recovery proceedings initiated by the State Bank of Travancore under the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner had failed to comply with the order and had thereby committed an act of indiscipline.

(3.) The petitioner alleged that the departmental proceedings initiated in the month of his retirement was ill-motivated and without substance. It was alleged that the only reason for initiating the proceedings was to delay disbursal of DCRG to the petitioner, thereby causing substantial hardship to the petitioner and his family. On merits, it was submitted that the alleged incident of the petitioner having misbehaved with the DYFI activists on 23.4.2017 had never occurred. As far as the second proceedings is concerned, it was submitted that the petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.3,15,000/- from the State Bank of Travancore, the repayment of which was defaulted for reasons beyond his control, causing the Bank to initiate SARFAESI proceedings, during the course of which an order for production of the vehicle was issued by the jurisdictional Magistrate. It was submitted that challenging the SARFAESI proceedings and seeking time for repayment of the loan amount, the petitioner had approached this Court with WP(C).No.31750 of 2016, which was disposed of under Annexure A7 judgment dated 6.10.2016, directing payment of the entire balance amount in 12 equal monthly instalments commencing from 4.11.2016. It was hence contended that as on the date on which the Magistrate's Court had directed production of the vehicle, the petitioner had already been granted the benefit of repayment in instalments under Annexure A7 judgment.