DINAKARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was a Deputy Commissioner in the State Excise Department, when the infamous incident known as kalluvathukkal tragedy occurred. Going by the records and the submissions, many of the officers, who were responsible to supervise and enforce excise discipline, went scot free or with flee bite. The Government, ultimately, reduced the pension of the petitioner by Rs. 200/- per month. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal has refused to interfere with that holding that the Government was within the jurisdiction in terms of Rule 59(b) of Part-Ill of the Kerala Service Rules, which provides that 'if the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the Government may make such reduction in the amounts as they think proper'. This is, essentially, a measure qua a particular employee. Therefore, the application of Rule 59(b) and the resultant decision cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny on the ground of hostile discrimination with reference to any other employee either in the same category or in a different category. The Tribunal having exercised its jurisdiction in terms of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and it having looked into the material particulars to arrive at such decision, we do not find any ground to visit it in exercise of authority under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This original petition, therefore, fails.