ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, PADMANABHAPURAM Vs. LOORDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 28.10.1999 made in W. P. No.16360 of 1992 in and by which, after finding that the punishment imposed on the writ petitioner is excessive , allowed the writ petition.

(2.) Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants. The respondent/ writ petitioner, though duly served notice from this Court in this appeal, has not chosen to contest the same by engaging a counsel.

(3.) We verified the charges levelled against the respondent herein, his explanation, order of the original authority and the Divisional authority as well as the order of the learned single Judge setting aside those orders. Though we are not in entire agreement with the reasoning of the learned single Judge, inasmuch as the alleged incident took place as early as on 19.2.1992 in the absence of any information about the position of the respondent viz. , whether he is continuing the same business or not, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge at this juncture nearly after 15 years. On this ground, we dismiss the writ appeal. No costs.