SAMUEL MATHEW PARAKKAT Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in these two Writ Petitions is whether the Government is justified in passing Ext.P8 order imposing a penalty of withholding of an amount of Rs.1820/- per month from the monthly pension of the petitioner for a period of 60 months.

(2.) The allegations against the petitioner is that while he was working as Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer, Kasaragod, he was unauthorisedly absent from office from 21.12.1992 to 31.12.1992 and that he made short payment of the financial grants which were sanctioned to the Ex-servicemen and dependents by deducting Rs. 20 to Rs. 100/- from the sanctioned amount and making entries in the discharge books and office records to the effect that the amount has been paid and also obtained signature of the beneficiaries for the same. It is further alleged that the petitioner demanded and accepted amounts varying from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 300/- from widows of Ex-servicemen and thereby failed to maintain integrity and devotion to duty.

(3.) The petitioner faced vigilance enquiry on the above charges and after a full fledged enquiry, the Vigilance Tribunal submitted its report to the Government. Accepting the report submitted by the Vigilance Tribunal, the Government issued Ext.P2 show cause notice and Ext.P3 revised show cause notice to the petitioner directing him to show cause why a punishment of reduction in stages to the lowest time scale for five years under Note 6 to Sub-rule (v) of Rulr 11 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") should not be imposed on him, as advised by the Public Service Commission. As the explanation submitted by the petitioner was found unsatisfactory, the petitioner was informed of the proposed punishment as per Ext.P5 communication. Ext.P5 is challenged by the petitioner in O.P. No. 32402 of 2001 and this Court as per order dated 30.10.2001 stayed further proceedings in Ext.P5. During the pendency of the above Original Petition, the Government examined the matter further and passed Ext.P8 order which is challenged in W.P.(C) No. 15804 of 2004.