T RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, PEON Vs. STATE OF KERALA; DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES; JOINT DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES AND SUB TREASURY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a Peon in the Treasury Department. Allegations of misappropriation were raised against him and others in 1992-93. The petitioner submits, enquiry was held into those allegations and further proceedings against him were dropped. Later, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and others based on the very same allegations. The case was investigated and finally tried by the Special Court. The petitioner and others were convicted by the said Court. But, later this Court by the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 623 of 2001 dated 8-11-2002 acquitted the petitioner and others. Pursuant to the decision of this Court, the petitioner who was dismissed from service pursuant to the conviction by the Special Court, was reinstated into service on 2-8-2003.

(2.) The Government decided to take disciplinary action against the petitioner and others notwithstanding their acquittal by this Court. Memo of charges were issued. Their explanations were obtained and final orders in the said proceedings were passed as per Ext.P6. Punishment of censure was imposed. It was also ordered that the period of suspension and the period he was out of service pursuant to the dismissal order will be treated as eligible leave. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P9 appeal before the second respondent. It appears that the petitioner's appeal was forwarded to the Government and the Government dismissed the same by Ext.P10. The petitioner submits, a similarly placed person who was also an accused along with the writ petitioner has been let off without any punishment and he has been granted entire arrears of salary treating the period he was out of service as duty for all purposes. Ext.P8 dated 23-9- 2003 is that order. The petitioner claims similar treatment in his appeal memo. But, the said point was not considered while Ext.P10 was passed. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit resisting the prayers in the writ petition.