M SHAMSUDEEN Vs. SECRETARY IN GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a pensioner. He retired from service as District Supply officer, Thiruvananthapuram on 31-7-1998 on attaining the age of superannuation. This Original Petition is filed challenging Ext. P-1 order dated 7-5-2001 issued by the State Government, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies on 5-1-2000 fixing the sum of Rs. 25,696 as his liability and directing recovery of the said amount from his Death cum Retirement Gratuity, was rejected. The petitioner has also sought disbursement of the retirement benefits in full together with interest thereon at 18% per annum, from the date of his retirement. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(2.) WHILE the petitioner was working as District Supply Officer, thiruvananthapuram, the authorisation issued to two authorised wholesale distributors, AWD No. 29 run by Sri G. Ramesan at Naruvamood and AWD No. 30 run by M/s Ahammed Khan and Company at Balaramapuram was suspended pending enquiry, under Clause 51 (8) of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966, by the Deputy Controller of Rationing, South Zone, Kollam. The order suspending the authorisation of the aforesaid authorised wholesale distributors was communicated to the Taluk Supply Officer, Neyyattinkara, who, on 12-10-1997 took over the stock of rationed articles available with the aforesaid two authorised wholesale distributors and entrusted it with AWD No. T 22 at Kattakada run by apvn and Co. and AWD No. 24 at Neyyattinkara run by Smt. Sarasamma respectively. The value of the stock seized from AWD No. 29 was Rs. 11,27,847 and from AWD No. 30 was Rs. 9,68,229. In his letter, No. CS2-5954/97 dated 13-11-1997, the petitioner directed the Taluk Supply Officer, thiruvananthapuram to deposit the value of the stock in the Syndicate Bank, Statue branch, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the petitioner, such a direction was issued on the erroneous assumption that Government Orders permitted dealers in rationed articles to avail loan facilities from banks. On realising that the said facility is available only to authorised retail distributors and not to authorised wholesale distributors, the petitioner corrected the mistake committed by him and directed the taluk Supply Officer, Neyyattinkara to deposit the amount in revenue deposit in the sub Treasury. The money was accordingly deposited in the Sub Treasury, neyyattinkara. For having directed the Taluk Supply Officer to deposit the value of the seized rationed articles in the Syndicate Bank, instead of depositing it in revenue deposit, disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner and a memo of charges was issued to him on 18-5-1998.

(3.) THE charge against the petitioner was that he had, with ulterior motives colluded with the suspended authorised wholesale distributors and allowed private individuals to handle Government money indefinitely in violation of Article 269 (21) of the Kerala Financial Code, Volume I and the standing directions issued by the State Government and the Board of Revenue regarding the mode of remittance of the value of rationed articles held by suspended authorised wholesale distributors. It was also alleged that by the said act, he caused financial loss to the Government. On receipt of the memo of charges, the petitioner submitted Ext. P-2 reply dated 20-7-1998 denying the charges. Shortly thereafter, the petitioner retired from service on 31-7-1998. The Commissioner of Civil supplies found the petitioner and the Taluk Supply Officer guilty of the charges and directed recovery of the sum of Rs. 51,392 from them in equal moieties. The liability of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 25,696. The petitioner thereupon filed an appeal before the State Government followed by O. P. No. 29734 of 2000 in this court praying inter alia for an expeditious disposal of the said appeal. By judgment delivered on 23-10-2000 in O. P. No. 29734 of 2000, this Court directed the state Government to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. By Ext. P-1 order passed on 7-5-2001, the appeal was rejected. This Original Petition was thereupon filed seeking the following reliefs: