SHAMSUDEEN M Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a pensioner. He retired from service as District Supply Officer, Thiruvananthapuram on 31/07/1998 on attaining the age of superannuation. This Original Petition is filed challenging Ext. P1 order dated 07/05/2001 issued by the State Government, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies on 05/01/2000 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 & 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 whole sale 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. T22 at Kattakada run by APVN & 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, Statute 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 18/05/1998.

(3.) IN the light of the observations made by the Division Bench, the petitioner filed RP No. 801 of 2005 in this Original Petition. By order passed on 16/02/2006, the review petition was allowed and the judgment closing this Original Petition was recalled. That is how this Original Petition has come up before me for hearing.