V. SIVASANKARAN NAIR Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner retired from the State Government Service as a Tahsildar on 4 -8 -1967. While he was in service., the District Collector, Ernakulam, the third respondent, framed two charges against him. One was dated 30 -6 -1966 for delaying land acquisition proceedings. The other was dated 29 -12 -1965 for utilising the services of a suspended Village Assistant. The petitioner was found guilty of the charges. For the former charge, he was imposed by the order Ex. R -3 dated 13 -4 -1967 the penalty of withholding increments of his salary for two years with cumulative effect. For the latter charge, he was imposed by the order Ex. R -4 dated 7 -6 -1967 the penalty of withholding increments for six months without cumulative effect. It was then realised that by virtue of the fact that he retired from service on 4 -8 -1967, the above punishments could not be enforced. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent issued a notice, Ex. P -1 dated 10 -2 -1969, to the petitioner requiring him to show cause why an amount of Rs. 2850/ - being the monetary value equivalent to the amount of increments ordered to be withheld as per Exs. R -3 and R -4, should not be recovered in lump from the arrears of pay and allowances due to him. The petitioner sent a reply Ex. P -2 dated 6 -3 -69, stating that he did not receive the orders imposing the aforesaid penalties, and that under Rule 11(1) (iv) (b) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, the amount demanded as per Ex. P -2 was not recoverable, from him. The third respondent, by his order Ex. P -3 dated 30 -3 -1969 rejected the petitioner's objections, and directed the recovery of the sum of Rs. 2850/ - from the petitioner. The petitioner wrote to the 3rd respondent by his letter Ex. P -4 dated 10 -6 -1969 requesting the 3rd respondent to furnish to the petitioner copies of the punishment orders, reiterating his stand that he had not received them. The third respondent replied stating that the petitioner may apply for attested copies of the said orders. He did not do so ; but he filed this writ petition to quash Exs. P -1, P -3, R -3 and R -4, to direct the third respondent to furnish the petitioner with copies of Exs. R -3 and R -4, to direct the 2nd respondent, the Board of Revenue, to give the petitioner an opportunity to file appeals from Exs. R -3 and R -4 and to prohibit the respondents, the first respondent being the State of Kerala, from taking any steps for the realisation of the amounts as per Exs. P -1 and P -3. Ex. P -1 is only a show cause notice, which had ended in the final order Ex. P -3. There is, therefore, no meaning in seeking any relief in respect of this notice. The Counter -affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent states that copies of Exs. R -3 and R -4 were delivered in the office of the petitioner on 19 -4 -1967 and 14 -6 -1967 respectively and acknowledgement of the office tapal clerk was obtained in the local delivery book of the Collectorate in token of having received the orders. The petitioner must have received copies of the orders in due course. There is no reason to think otherwise. The petitioner admits that he got a communication dated 11 -8 -1967 from the Personal Assistant to the District Collector, informing him that Ex. R -3 would be deemed to have been received by him; but he states that immediately after receipt of the above communication, he wrote to the third respondent that he did not receive Ex. R -3 or R -4. The counter affidavit denies having received any such letter from the petitioner. The petitioner has not produced the communication dated 11 -8 -1967; and therefore it cannot be known under what circumstances it was sent. He has not also produced a copy of the letter alleged to have been sent by him to the Collector. He knew at least on 11 -8 -1967 that orders have been passed against him imposing penalties. Then, if he did not receive copies of those orders, as now alleged by him he would have at least applied for their copies and taken steps to file appeals from them. He thought of that only after the impugned order Ex. P -3 dated 6 -3 -1969 was passed. I have no doubt that the contention that he did not receive copies of the orders, Exs. R -3 and R -4 is untrue. The petitioner is not, therefore, entitled to the second relief he has asked for in this writ petition. The third relief sought against the second respondent is anticipatory and is without any basis. That also has to be rejected.

(2.) THEN the only question for consideration is whether the order, Ex. P -3, calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs. 2850/ - as monetary value of the increments withheld as per Exs. R -3 and R -4 is valid under law. Sub -rule (1) of Rule 11 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, enumerates the penalties that can be imposed on a Government servant found guilty of any misconduct. I am concerned in this case only with the penalties mentioned in clauses (iii) and (iv) of Sub -Rule (1). The punishment provided in clause (iii) is "withholding of increments or promotion". Clause (iv) reads as follows:

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contended that the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, have no application to a retired government servant, unless expressly provided to the contrary. He also invited my attention to Rules 23 and 24 which relate to appeals, wherein an express provision is made to the effect that in the said rules, the expression "member of service" includes a person who has ceased to be a member of that service. Such a provision has placed the matter beyond controversy; and the absence of a similar provision in other rules does not imply that they would not apply to a person who has ceased to be a government servant. Every rule has to be interpreted on its own language and other relevant considerations.