S.NARAYANA MOORTHY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext.P8 order passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2463/2014, dismissing the Original Application filed- challenging the correctness and sustainability of Exts.P9, P11 and P16 orders, is under challenge in this Original Petition.

(2.) The sequence of events reveals that the petitioner is working as a Statistical Assistant and when he was working as a U.D.Investigator, he was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 order dated 30.12.2005; alleging some misconduct against him. The petitioner was served with Ext.P2 memo of charges and a domestic enquiry was conducted. Later, he came to be reinstated in service on 8.5.2006. Ultimately, in the enquiry, he was found guilty and punishment of banning of one increment was proposed and explanation was sought for. Based on the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the finding in enquiry was set aside and the disciplinary authority ordered a 'de novo' enquiry, on completion of which, the petitioner was again found guilty. Accepting the said finding, a punishment of banning of one increment without cumulative effect was imposed upon him, besides ordering to realise 50% of the cost of a 'litho map' which was found missing; whereas the remaining 50% liability was fixed upon the Statistical Officer, who was heading the Department.

(3.) On being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner moved the Government by way of appeal, wherein Ext.P3 order was passed on 22.8.2008. The petitioner was exonerated from the charges levelled against him; but the order to recover the loss sustained by the Department (to an extent of 50% as fixed on the petitioner) was sustained. This was subjected to challenge in W.P.(C)No.33163/2008. The said writ petition came to be transferred to the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, where it was re-numbered as T.A.No.3108/2012. After hearing both the sides, Ext.P3 order was set aside as per Annexure A2 verdict passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal and the appellate authority was directed to reconsider the matter; particularly with reference to whether the order to realize the cost of the litho map was correct or sustainable in the light of Ext.P21 employment certificate, which, according to the petitioner, was enough to presume that no liability was pending as on that date. The regularization of the period of suspension was also directed to be considered afresh. It was accordingly, that the matter was considered by the 1st respondent who passed Annexure.A7 order dated 9.6.2014, wherein the liability to satisfy the litho map was upheld and the period of suspension was ordered to be treated as 'eligible leave'. This made the petitioner to approach the Tribunal again by filing O.A.No.2463/2014. After considering the rival contentions, interference was declined and the O.A. was dismissed as per Ext.P8 order dated 27.1.2016, which in turn is under challenge in this Original Petition.