THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner quite in extenso. We have also heard learned Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission. Petitioner, while in service, was suspended on 22.7.2005 on being arrested by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, allegedly, while receiving bribe from a person for relieving him from liability of luxury tax for a building. Later he was readmitted to duty. After that, while working as Revenue Divisional Officer, petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2006 on superannuation.

(2.) The criminal case registered against the petitioner was investigated. That led to a final report before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge. Following trial, petitioner was found guilty, and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default sentence for three months. He filed an appeal before this Court and obtained an interlocutory order suspending the execution of the sentence on conditions. That appeal is pending.

(3.) Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice proposing to withdraw all pensionary benefits permanently. Rule 2 of Part III K.S.R. was quoted as the source of power for that show cause notice. Petitioner replied to that notice, essentially saying that no such power lies under Rule 2 of Part III K.S.R.. The Government thereafter, issued the order withdrawing all pensionary benefits permanently. The petitioner challenged that decision before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, fundamentally contending that Rule 2 of Part III K.S.R. does not apply. Rule 2 of Part III K.S.R. applies when the misconduct leading to the finding of guilt is committed after retirement. The Tribunal rightly noted that Rule 2 of Part III K.S.R. might not have applied since the incident which has led to the finding of guilt occurred while the petitioner was in service and therefore, it was Rule 3 of Part III K.S.R. that would apply. So much so, the Tribunal examined the contents of the Government decision in the light of the requirements of Rule 3 of Part III K.S.R. and held that in substance, the procedural default is only of misquoting the rule and not as to the propriety in procedure or violation of any rule of hearing etc. The Tribunal held that having regard to the fact that the Government had adverted to and considered relevant materials and also having regard to the undisputed fact that the petitioner stands convicted for an act punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Government's order impugned stands.