[ad_1]
Kerala High Court
K.V.Jalaludheen vs The State Of Kerala on 6 August, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
OP(KAT)No.24 of 2017 1
2025:KER:59392
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 24 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2016 IN O.A. NO.2903 OF 2013
OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
K.V.JALALUDHEEN
AGED 62 YEARS
SON OF MOIDEEN, FOREST RANGE OFFICER(RETIRED)
(RESIDING AT KADAVATH HOUSE P O EDAVAKA,
MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT-670645
BY ADV SRI.M.SAJJAD
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
FOREST DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF
FORESTS, VAZHUTHAKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695022.
3 THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
WAYANAD, KERALA-670101.
OP(KAT)No.24 of 2017 2
2025:KER:59392
4 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY),
TALUK OFFICE, MANANTHAVADY,
WAYANAD DISTRICT-670645.
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE, EDAVAKA,
WAYANAD DISTRICT-670198.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. B. UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR. GP
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 06.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT)No.24 of 2017 3
2025:KER:59392
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner filed O.A.No.2903 of 2013 before the Kerala
Administrative Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram, invoking the
provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985, seeking an order to quash Annexure A6 order dated
24.12.2011 and Annexure A9 order dated 29.07.2013 issued by
the 1st respondent State and also Annexure A10 notice dated
08.10.2013 issued by the 3rd respondent Divisional Forest Officer,
Wayanad. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that he
is not liable to pay the amount mentioned in Annexures A6, A9
and A10; and an order directing the respondents to drop all
proceedings against him for recovery of the amounts mentioned
in Annexures A6, A9 and A10.
2. The petitioner-applicant retired from service on
28.02.2006, while working as Range Officer, Social Forestry
Division, Kalpatta, under the Forest Department. After his
retirement, pensionary benefits were sanctioned by the
Accountant General, Kerala, vide order dated 18.09.2006. On
01.10.2010, the concerned Assistant Conservator of Forest
OP(KAT)No.24 of 2017 4
2025:KER:59392
forwarded the Non-Liability Certificate (NLC) in respect of the
applicant to the Accountant General, Kerala for the purpose of
sanctioning Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG), as evident
from Annexure A11, wherein it was certified that he has no liability
towards Government other than those mentioned in that NLC.
Thereafter, DCRG was also disbursed to the applicant. While in
service, the applicant was issued with Annexure A2 memorandum
of charges and statement of allegations dated 19.06.1997, by the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, the 2nd respondent herein.
Annexure A2 was in respect of construction of 10 number of
houses for the Tribals in Cheeyambam Coffee Plantation. The
applicant submitted a reply to Annexure A2. Thereafter, he was
issued with Annexure A3 fresh memo of charges and statement of
allegations dated 11.04.2000. The applicant submitted reply to
Annexure A3. Dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the
applicant an enquiry was ordered, which was conducted by the
Divisional Forest Officer, Flying Squad, Kozhikode. After the
retirement of the petitioner, the 1st respondent State issued
Annexure A4 show cause notice dated 16.02.2008, requiring the
applicant to show cause why an amount of Rs.90,101/- shall not
OP(KAT)No.24 of 2017 5
2025:KER:59392
be recovered from him. On receipt of Annexure A4 show cause
notice, the applicant submitted Annexure A5 reply dated
03.05.2008. After considering Annexure A5 reply, the 1 st
respondent State issued Annexure A6 order dated 24.12.2011,
ordering recovery of an amount of Rs.90,101/- from the applicant.
Seeking review of Annexure A6 order, the applicant approached
the 1st respondent. In the personal hearing conducted on
10.05.2012, the applicant submitted Annexure A8 hearing note.
Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued Annexure A9 order dated
29.07.2013, rejecting the application for review. Thereafter the
applicant was issued with Annexure A10 notice dated 08.10.2013
of the 3rd respondent Divisional Forest Officer, whereby he was
required to remit an amount of Rs.90,101/-, failing which recovery
steps will be initiated against him. The applicant challenged
Annexure A9 order before this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.28028 of
2013, in which this Court passed Annexure A11 judgment keeping
in abeyance the recovery steps for a period of one month, so as
to enable the applicant to approach the Kerala Administrative
Tribunal.
3. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent State filed
OP(KAT)No.24 of 2017 6
2025:KER:59392
Ext.P4 reply statement dated 05.06.2014. After considering the
rival contentions, the Tribunal by Ext.P1 order dated 23.09.2016
dismissed O.A.No.2903 of 2013, declining interference.
Paragraphs 4 to 7 and also the last paragraph of Ext.P1 order read
thus;
“4 . Heard the counsel on both sides. The counsel for the
applicant impugns the final orders on the ground that in the
enquiry proceedings the contention raised by the applicant
with regard to his non involvement as well as the
involvement of the other two officers were not taken note
of. The counsel submits that he was in additional charge only
for a period of nearly seven months, but the major portion
of the loss is fixed against him. The counsel also raised the
contention that he had already retired from service on
28.2.2006 and that the orders for recovery has been issued
only on 24.12.2011, i.e., after five years of retirement. It is
therefore, submitted that as per the provisions of Rule 3,
Part Ill KSR the same is time barred.
5. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand,
submits that the enquiry proceedings have been completed
in accordance with the provisions of law and that in so far
as the enquiry proceedings or the enquiry report not being
challenged the contentions with regard to the shortcomings
in the enquiry proceedings cannot be considered. The
learned Government Pleader also submits that the
disciplinary proceedings, which was initiated while the
applicant was in service, was continued after the retirement
OP(KAT)No.24 of 2017 7
2025:KER:59392
for recovering the loss caused to the Government. The
contentions of the applicant that the liability is time barred
cannot be accepted.
6. it s an admitted fact that the disciplinary proceedings was
initiated in the year 1997 by issuance of Annexures A2 and
A3 memo of charges while the applicant was in service.
Therefore, there was no bar in continuing and taking the
disciplinary proceedings to reach a logical conclusion even
after the retirement of the applicant. The order that has
been issued in the disciplinary proceedings as far as the
applicant is concerned, is to recover an amount of
Rs.90,101/-, the alleged loss caused by his misconduct to
the Government, which is fully sustainable by virtue of the
Full Bench decision of the Hon’ble High Court in Raveendran
Nair v. State of Kerala [2007 (1) KLT 605].
7. The next contention of the applicant that the revenue
recovery proceedings now initiated for recovering a liability
is time barred also does not deserve any merit. This is so
because even in case of a liability, the same can be imposed
after retirement and if the same is done after three years it
can be recovered by resorting to revenue recovery
Proceedings or by instituting appropriate civil Suit. However,
in the case of the applicant it is in culmination of a
disciplinary proceedings, which was initiated while the
applicant was in service, that the recovery is Sought to be
effected.
In view of the above, the Original Application fails and is
accordingly dismissed.”
4. Challenging Ext.P1 order dated 23.09.2016 of the
OP(KAT)No.24 of 2017 8
2025:KER:59392
Tribunal in O.A.No.2903 of 2013, the petitioner-applicant is before
this Court in this original petition, invoking the supervisory
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
5. On 19.01.2017, when this original petition came up for
admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on
admission for the respondents. By the order dated 19.01.2017, it
was ordered that the operation and implementation of Ext.P1
order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.2903 of 2013 as also Annexures
A6, A9 and A10, including recovery pursuant to the said orders,
shall be kept in abeyance till 21.02.2017. The interim order, which
was extended by one month on 20.02.2017, was extended until
further orders on 06.06.2017.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant
and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.
7. The issue that requires consideration in this Original
Petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P1
order dated 23.09.2016 of the Tribunal in O.A.No.2903 of 2013.
8. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with power
of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under clause
OP(KAT)No.24 of 2017 9
2025:KER:59392
(1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall have
superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
9. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil
[(2010) 8 SCC 329] the Apex Court, while analysing the scope
and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of
the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both
administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and
orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way
as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference
under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the
wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice
remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public
confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts
subordinate to the High Court.
10. In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
[(2010) 9 SCC 385], while considering the nature and scope of
the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Apex
Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of
the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate
OP(KAT)No.24 of 2017 10
2025:KER:59392
courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals exercise the
powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The
High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they
act in accordance with the well established principles of law. The
exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well recognised
constraints. It cannot be exercised like a ‘bull in a china shop’, to
correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting
within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can
be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave
dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles
of law or justice.
11. In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan
Transport Corporation [(2015) 12 SCC 39] the Apex Court
held that, in exercise of the power of superintendence under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can
interfere with the order of the court or tribunal only when there
has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunal and
courts subordinate to it or where there has been gross and
manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice
have been flouted.
OP(KAT)No.24 of 2017 11
2025:KER:59392
12. In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1)
KHC 1] a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well
settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in
proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this
Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower
court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only
supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court.
Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is
called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal
has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably
perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower
court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law.
13. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred
to supra, this Court in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal
over the findings recorded by the Administrative Tribunal. The
supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of
the order or judgment of the Administrative Tribunal, acting within
the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under
Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order of the
OP(KAT)No.24 of 2017 12
2025:KER:59392
Administrative Tribunal has been passed in grave dereliction of
duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or
justice. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 is called for,
unless this Court finds that the Administrative Tribunal has
committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or
patently unreasonable, or the decision of the Tribunal is in direct
conflict with settled principles of law or where there has been
gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of
natural justice have been flouted.
14. During the course of arguments, the submission made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant is that the
finding of the 1st respondent State in Annexures A6 and A9 orders
regarding the misconduct alleged to have been committed by the
applicant is absolutely without any factual foundation and in such
circumstances, the said orders warrant interference in this original
petition. The learned counsel would also submit that when the
petitioner had already retired from service on 28.02.2006, the
respondents are not justified in issuing such an order, fastening
him a liability of Rs.90,101/-. Instead of initiating revenue
recovery proceedings, vide Annexure A10, the 1st respondent
OP(KAT)No.24 of 2017 13
2025:KER:59392
State ought to have filed a suit before the competent Civil Court
for quantification of the loss and for consequential reliefs.
15. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government
Pleader would submit that in the absence of any vitiating
circumstances, the Tribunal declined interference on Annexures A6
and A9 orders and also the recovery proceedings pursuant to
Annexure A10. The reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P1 order is not
perverse or patently illegal, warranting an interference of this
Court in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227
of the Constitution of India. The disciplinary proceedings initiated
against the petitioner-applicant, while he was in service, was
continued after his retirement, which culminated in Annexure A6
order. It is thereafter that the recovery proceedings were initiated
against him as evidenced by Annexure A10.
16. Having considered the pleadings and materials on
record and also the submissions made at the Bar, we find that the
reasoning of the 1st respondent State in Annexure A6 order or in
Annexure A9 order cannot be said to be either perverse or patently
illegal warranting interference. It is after considering the case put
forth by the applicant that the 1st respondent passed Annexure A6
OP(KAT)No.24 of 2017 14
2025:KER:59392
order. Thereafter, the review petition filed by the applicant was
also dismissed by Annexure A9 order, stating valid reasons.
Paragraphs 7 to 9 of Annexure A9 order read thus;
“തന്റെ പേരിലുള്ള ചാർജ്ജ്, ശ്രീ ടി.എം. അചുതൻ നായർ ന്റചയ്യിച്ച
പ ാലിയുന്റട അോകതകളാന്റെന്ന ശ്രീ ന്റക.വി ലാലുദ്ദിൻ്്ന്റെ വാദം
അടിസ്ഥാനരഹിതവം മനഃപൂർവ്വം ന്റതറ്റിദ്ധാരെയുണ്ടാക്കാൻഉപദ്ദശിച്ചുള്ളതുമാെ്. പമൽക്കൂരയുന്റട പ്രവൃത്തികൾ ശ്രീ ന്റക. വി. ലാലുദീൻ
നടത്തിയതായി പപ്രാസികൂഷൻ ആപരാേിച്ചിട്ടില്ല. സൗത്ത് വയനാട്ഡിവിഷെൽ പഫാെസ്റ്റ് ഓഫീസറുന്റട ഉത്തരവനുസരിച്ച് ആദിവാസി വീട്
നിർമ്മാെത്തിനായി ചടച്ചി, പവങ്ങ ഇനങ്ങളിൽന്റെട്ട 13.849 M3 തടി
ന്റചതലത്ത് പഫാെസ്റ്റ് ന്റെയ്ചാഫീസെിൽ നിന്ന് ന്റെയിച് ഓഫീസർ ശ്രീ.
ന്റക.വി. ലാലുദീൻ്്ന്റെ നിർപദ്ദശ പ്രകാരം ശ്രീ ടി.ന്റ . പദവസ്സ്യ എന്ന
കൺവീനൊെ് എറ്റു വാങ്ങിയത്. ട്രൈബൽ സബ് േ്ളാൻ അനുസരിച്ചുള്ള
പ ാലികൾ കൺവീനർപക്കാ കരാറുകാർപക്കാ നൽകരുന്റതന്ന (സംരക്ഷെ
വിഭാഗം) ചീഫ് പഫാെസ്റ്റ് കൺസർപവറ്ററുന്റട 14.12.93 ന്റല 16/93 നമ്പർസർക്കുലെിന് വിരുദ്ധമായി കൺവീനർ പദവസയന്റയന്റക്കാണ്ടാെ്
പ്രവൃത്തികൾ ന്റചയ്യിച്ചത്. കൂടാന്റത ടി തടികൾ പസ്റ്റാക്കിന്റലടുക്കുകപയാ
സ്ഥലത്ത് ന്റകാണ്ടുവരികപയാ ന്റചയ്യാന്റത സുൽത്താൻ ബപത്തരിയിന്റലപകാക്കൂട്ടി എന്നയാളുന്റട മില്ലിൽ ന്റകാണ്ടു ന്റചന്നിടുകിയാെ് ന്റചയ്തത്. തടി
ഏന്ററ്റടുക്കുകയും കൺന്റവർഷൻ നടത്തുകയും ഉേപയാഗിക്കുകയും
ന്റചയ്തതിന് പസ്റ്റാക്ക് ര ിസ്റ്റർ, കൺന്റവർഷൻ ര ിസ്റ്റർ,
യൂട്ടിട്രലപസഷൻ്് ര ിസ്റ്റർ എന്നിവ സൂക്ഷിച്ചിട്ടില്ല. (ശ്രീ. ന്റക.വി.ലാലുദ്ദിൻ്്ന്റെ ചാർജ്ജിലുണ്ടായിരുന്ന 13.849 M3 ചടച്ചി, പവങ്ങ തടികളിൽ
വാതിൽ, നൽ എന്നിവയ്ക്ക് 1.027 M3 തടിയും (0.539 M3 പവങ്ങ, 0.488
M3ചടച്ചി) അടക്കം 2.187 M3 തടി മാത്രമാെ് ഉേപയാഗിച്ചത്. സർക്കാർ
OP(KAT)No.24 of 2017 152025:KER:59392
തടിക്ക് േകരം അടങ്കലിൽ ഇല്ലാത്തതും ന്റവള്ള അടങ്ങിയതുമായ 1.326 M3മാവം, 7.50 M3 പ്ലാവം അടക്കം 8.826 M3 തടിയും ഉേപയാഗിച്ചു. ഇതിൽ
പമൽക്കൂരയുന്റട പ്രവൃത്തികൾ നടത്തിയത് ശ്രീ അചുതൻ നായരാന്റെങ്കിലും
ശ്രീ. ന്റക.വി. ലാലുദ്ദീൻ തൻ്്ന്റെ ചുമതലയിലുള്ള സർക്കാർ മരത്തിൽഉേപയാഗിച്ചവ കഴിച്ച് ബാക്കി േിൻഗാമിയായ അചുതൻ നായർക്ക്’
റ്റി.സി.ആർ. പ്രകാരം ട്രകമാെിയിട്ടില്ല. ഇക്കാരെത്താലാെ് ടി വീടുകളുന്റട
അോകത േരിഹരിക്കാനായി ഉേപയാഗിച്ച 9.920 M3 തടികളുന്റട വില ശ്രീ.
ന്റക.വി ലാലുദ്ദീനിൽ നിന്ന് ഈടാക്കാൻ ഉത്തരവായത്.സർക്കാർ തടിക്ക് േകരം വില കുെഞ്ഞ ന്റവള്ളയുൾന്റെട്ട പ്ലാവിൻ തടികൾ
ശ്രീ. അചുതൻ നായർ ഉേപയാഗിക്കുകയും എന്നാൽ സർക്കാർ തടിയായ
ചടച്ചി, പവങ്ങ എന്നിവ ഉേപയാഗിച്ചതായി ന്റമഷർന്റമൻ്്െ്
ബുക്കിൽപരഖന്റെടുത്തി കൺവീനർക്ക് ബിൽ തുക നൽകി എന്ന ശ്രീ. ന്റക.വി.
ലാലുദ്ദീൻ്്ന്റെ വാദം പൂർണ്ണമായും ശരിയല്ല. വാതിൽ, നൽ കട്ടിളകൾക്ക്
അടങ്കൽ പ്രകാരമുള്ള സർക്കാർ മരം ഉേപയാഗിക്കുന്നതിൽ കുെവ്
വരുത്തുകയും, വാതിൽ, നൽ ോളികൾക്ക് സർക്കാർ മരം തീന്റര
ഉേപയാഗിക്കാന്റത േകരം വിലയും ഗുെപമന്മയും കുെഞ്ഞ മരം
ഉേപയാഗിക്കുകയും ന്റചയ്യുകയും ന്റമഷർന്റമൻ്്െ് ബുക്കുകളിൽ സർക്കാർ
നൽകിയ ചടച്ചി, പവങ്ങ എന്നിവ ഉേപയാഗിച്ചതായി പരഖന്റെടുത്തുകയും
ന്റചയ്തത് ശ്രീ. ന്റക.വി. ലാലുദ്ദീനാന്റെന്ന് ഔേചാരിക അപനേഷെെിപൊർട്ടിൽ നിന്നം വയക്തമാകുന്നണ്ട്. പമൽക്കൂര സംബന്ധിച്ച
പ്രവൃത്തികൾക്കാെ് ശ്രീ. എം. അചുതൻ നായർ ന്റമഷർന്റമൻ്്െ് ബുക്കിൽ
പരഖന്റെടുത്തി േെം നൽകിയത്.
പമൽ സാഹചരയത്തിൽ ശ്രീ. ന്റക.വി. ലാലുദ്ദീൻന്റെ ഭാഗത്തു നിന്നണ്ടായ
അതീവ ഗുരുതരമായ വീഴ്ച കെക്കിന്റലടുക്കുപമ്പാൾ സർക്കാർ നഷ്ടം
ഈടാക്കുന്നതിൽ മാത്രം േരിമിതന്റെടുതി ടിയാന് നല്കിയിരിക്കുന്ന ശിക്ഷഅധികമന്റല്ലന്നം എല്ലാ നടേടിക്രമങ്ങളും ോലിച്ചാെ് ശിക്ഷ
നൽകിയിട്ടുള്ളന്റതന്നം ആയതിനാൽ ടിയാൻ്്ന്റെ െിവൂ അപേക്ഷ
OP(KAT)No.24 of 2017 162025:KER:59392
േരിഗെനാർഹമന്റല്ലന്നം തള്ളിക്കളയാവന്നതാന്റെന്നം അഡീഷെൽപ്രിൻസിെൽ ചീഫ് കൺസർപവറ്റർ ഓഫ് പഫാെസ്റ്റ് (ഡി & േി) (ശുോർശ
ന്റചയ്തു.
തന്റന്ന സർക്കാർ ഈ വിഷയം ബന്ധന്റെട്ട പരഖകളുമായി
േരിപശാധിക്കുകയും കുറ്റവിമുക്തനാക്കാൻ തക്ക വാദവമുഖങ്ങന്റളാന്നം.ശ്രീ.ന്റക.വി. ലാലുദീൻ ഉന്നയിച്ചിട്ടില്ലാന്റയന്ന് കണ്ടത്തുകയും ന്റചയ്തു.
പമൽ സാഹചരയത്തിൽ ശ്രീ. ന്റക.വി ലാലുദ്ദീൻ, ന്റെയിചാഫീസർ (െിട്ട)
േരാമർശം (2) പ്രകാരം നൽകിയ െിവൂ ന്റേറ്റീഷൻ നിരസിച്ചുന്റകാണ്ട്.
ഉത്തരവ് പുെന്റെടുവിക്കുന്ന.”
17. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the
Tribunal committed a manifest error while declining the relief
sought for in O.A.No.2903 of 2013 or that the reasoning of the
Tribunal in Ext.P1 order is perverse or patently illegal or is in direct
conflict with settled principles of law, warranting interference in
exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
18. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the
applicant continued after his retirement and the 1st respondent
State after complying with the statutory requirement issued
Annexure A6 order ordering recovery of an amount of Rs.90,101/-
from the applicant. The procedure adopted by the 1st respondent
State is strictly in tune with the provisions contained in Rule 3 Part
OP(KAT)No.24 of 2017 17
2025:KER:59392
III of Kerala Service Rules (KSR). As rightly noticed by the Tribunal
in Ext.P1 order the recovery steps initiated against the applicant,
as evidenced by Annexure A10, is legally sustainable in view of
the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Raveendran
Nair v. State of Kerala [2007 (1) KLT 605]. The contention to
the contra raised by the petitioner-applicant can only be rejected
as untenable and we do so.
In such circumstances, we find absolutely no grounds to
interfere with Ext.P1 order dated 23.09.2016 of the Kerala
Administrative Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram in O.A.No.2903 of
2013. This original petition fails and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MSA
OP(KAT)No.24 of 2017 18
2025:KER:59392
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 24 OF 2017
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A-1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 01-
0-2010 OF THE ASST. CONSERVATOR OF
FORESTS
ANNEXURE A-2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES ALONG
WITH STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS DATED 19-
06-1997
ANNEXURE A-3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES ALONG
WITH STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS DATED 11-
04-2000
ANNEXURE A-4 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NO.
15664/A1/04/FORESTS DATED 16-02-2008
ANNEXURE A-5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE PETITIONER
DATED 03-05-2008
ANNEXURE A-6 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO.
545/11/FORESTS DATED 24-12-2011 OF THE
GOVERNMENT
ANNEXURE A-6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION
ANNEXURE A-7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
3583/A1/12/FORESTS DATED 30-06-2012 OF
THE GOVERNMENT
ANNEXURE A-8 TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 10-05-2012
ANNEXURE A-9 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO.
288/2013/FORESTS DATED 29-07-2013 OF THE
GOVERNMENT
ANNEXURE A-9(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION
ANNEXURE A-10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 8-10-2013
OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
OP(KAT)No.24 of 2017 19
2025:KER:59392
ANNEXURE A-11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO.
28028 OF 2013-C DATED 15-11-2013
ANNEXURE MA1 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A NO.
2903/2013 DATED 23-09-2016 OF THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BENCH
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION
FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ALONG WITH
ANNEXURES
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS
APPLICATION FILED TO ACCEPT THE
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON
BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
[ad_2]
Source link