M C JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT is sought to be quashed here in Ext P-19-order dated November 27, 1969 of the State Government, the first respondent, end certain proceedings which preceded it. From May 2. 1958 ,to June 9. 1960 the petitioner was a Godown keeper in the Foodgrains depot at Ponnani under the Civil Supplies Department. During that period there was shortage in the stock of rice in that depot. By orders passed by the first respondent and the Board of Revenue the second respondent, the liability of the petitioner for the shortage in the stock of rice was first fixed as rs. 8,004. 22. Later, on the recommendation of the Board of Revenue, the government passed Exhibit P-11-order on August 27, 1963 enhancing the rate of shortage or shrinkage allowance in the case of Palghat milled rice. Consequent on that the Board of Revenue sent Ex. P-12 communication dated February 5. 1964 to the District Collector, Alleppey, the third respondent, informing him that the petitioner's liability for the shortage of rice found in the depot had been reduced from Rs. 8004. 22 to Rs. 2703. 26. when he was informed of it the petitioner sent first. Ext. P-13 representation on June 4. 1964 and then Ext. P-14 representation on October 20, 1964 to the Government stating that the shortage found was not on account of any fault of his. The Government in its turn informed him by Ext. P15 on September 19, 1966 that no further consideration was possible in his case. On September 26, 1966 the Board of Revenue by Ext. P-16 informed the District collector that the security amount offered by the petitioner had been adjusted towards the money due from him and requested the District Collector to recover from the petitioner's pay the balance due from him. The District Collector sent a copy of that communication to the petitioner. On October 17. 1966 the petitioner filed before this Court O. P. 3741 of 1966 for quashing the proceedings which culminated in Exhibit P-16 order. That was dismissed. From that Writ Appeal No. 229 of 1966 was filed. In disposing of that Writ Appeal on August 1. 1967 by Ext. P-17 judgment, a Division Bench of this Court observed that the petitioner proposed to move the Government for relief on the basis of some relevant materials and directed the Government to consider the representation when made, and dispose of the same untrammelled by the decision under appeal. On september 1, 1967 the petitioner sent Ext. P-18 representation to the government. It was that that was disposed of by the Government on November 27. 1969 by Ext. P-19 order.

(2.) EVEN at the outset it has to be said that the disposal by the Government of Ext. P-18 representation by Ext. P-19 order was in utter disregard of the direction given by this Court in Ext. P-17 judgment. Ext. P-17 judgment reads:

(3.) THE petitioner is a Government Servant. For misconduct it is the Kerala Civil services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 that apply to him. The government in this particular case did not consider it necessary to proceed against him under those Rules. Instead it resorted to Ext. P-1 contract with him when he entered service in the Civil Supplies Department. It is paragraph 4 of Ext. P-1 which reads thus: