VIJAYAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY Ext. P1 order of the Government dated 11. 1. 1995, the petitioner, who was working as a Senior Grade Assistant, attached to die administrative Secretariat, had been temporarily appointed as Assistant director of National Savings under R. 9 (a) (i) of the Kerala State and subordinate Services Rules. The petitioner was continuing thereafter in die above said post and during the yea: 2003, he was working in the Kottayam district.

(2.) THE District Collector, Kottayam apparently was of the opinion that because of the poor public acceptance of the petitioner, his lack of resourcefulness and inactive posture, he was incompetent to hold the post. THE District Collector had recommended the Department that the petitioner may be removed from the position. Considering the report, the Government had by ext. P3 dated 17. 9. 2003, issued a. memo to the petitioner. THE comments of the district Collector had been brought to his notice and he had been directed to furnish his explanation in respect of the draw backs as pointed out.

(3.) WHILE challenging the order, petitioner relies on a judgment passed by this Court in O. P. No. 36170 of 2000 dated 9. 3. 2001, which had been passed in an identical circumstance. Assistant Director of National savings, working at Thrissur, had been reverted. This Court had held that though the appointment was under R. 9 (a) (i) of the General Rules, since the officer had continued in the post for nine years the reversion order amounted to a punishment. As this was without enquiry and as a result thereof civil consequences were to befall on him, according to the learned judge, the order was not sustainable. The petitioner now points out that no appeal had been filed from the above said judgment. He also submits that his explanation had not been properly adverted to before passing Ext. P6. It is also submitted that though the appointment was under R. 9 (a) (i) of the General Rules, the petitioner was treated as part and parcel of the Department and his name found a place in the seniority list of officers published by the Government on 21. 4. 2003 consequent to a judgment passed by this Court and directions passed in a series of Original Petitions. He was rank No. 19 among the officers totalling 34.