K.K. Denesan, J.

In 1978 the petitioner was working as Village Assistant, Keezhallur Village. Subsequently he was promoted as Village Officer. While working as Village Officer, Keezhur, he was served with Ext. P1 memo of charges dated 13-3-1990 directing him to show cause why he should not be awarded with penalty of stoppage of annual increment for 3 years with cumulative effect. The following were the charges framed against him:

" I. That you while working as Village Assistant, Keezhallur have dishonestly reported to the Tahasildar, Tellicherry that there is only an extent of 4.05 acres of land in the possession ofSmt. Kariath Kadeesumma W/o. P.A. Mammoo in R.S. No.3/II of Kotheri desom in Keezhallur Village, Tellicherry Taluk though the Land Board in its revised order TLB. 1212/73(TLY) dated 28-4-78 have ordered to take possession of an extent of 4.75 acres of land in R.S. No. 3/II of Kotheir desom Keezhallur Village, Tellicherry Taluk from Smt. Kariath Kadeesumma, W/o. P.A. Mammo.

II. That you have misled the higher authorities by submitting false report and preparing incorrect sketch and Mahazar in respect of land taken possession from Kariath Kadeesumma W/o. P.S. Mammoo on 18-7-78 by the Tahasildar, Tellicherry.

III. That while taking possession of the land in R.S. No. 3/II of Kotheri desom, Keezhallur Village you have suppressed facts, mi-used your official position and played faul play and concealed 70 cents of land with ill-motive.

IV. That you have fraudeulently helped Smt. Thenasseri Madhavi Amma the assignee of 5 cents of land adjacent to 70 cents of land concealed for collecting usufructs from the entire 75 cents and thereby sustained heavy loss to Government."

2. Petitioner submitted Ext. P4 explanation to the memo of charges, denying the allegations made against him. He submitted that he was not the Officer who filed the report, but it was done by his superior. He emphatically denied the allegation that he had acted dishonestly, fraudulently etc. His case is that the true facts have not been taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority. In the penultimate paragraph of Ext. P4 he submitted as follows:

"In the circumstances I submit that I am innocent of the charge alleged against me and I may be exonerated."

If however the Sub Collector is not satisfied with my explanantion I pray that I may be give a chance to explain things better and by adducing further evidence."

3. The 3rd respondent Sub Collector passed Ext. P5 finding the petitioner guilty of the charges. After going through the explanation of the petitioner and the Village Officer and the report of the Taahasildar it was found that the petitioner acted malafide in measuring the land as 4.05 acres, as against the required extent of 4.75 acres.

4.Against Ext. P5 petitioner preferred Ext.P6 appeal before the 2nd respondent. But it was dismissed by Ext.P7. Finally he filed a petition before the 1st respondent-Governement. That petition was rejected as per Ext.P8. Petitioner has prayed for quashing Exts. P5, P7 and P8.

5. I have heard Sri. E.V. Nayanar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. Pleader for the respondents.

6.The main contention of the petitioner is that he had performed the duties entrusted to him under the direct supervision and instructions of the village Officer. He submits, after referring to the relevant provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, that the Village Assistant is not the officer authorized to take possession of the property declared as excess land. The lowest authority to take such possession is the Village Officer as can be seen from the Land Reforms (Ceiling)Rules. In fact, the report was submitted by the village officer. The work assigned to the petitioner was to prepare a sketch of the property and that work he did in the presence and under the direct supervision of the Village Officer. According to him, the neighbouring owners claimed possession of a portion of the property and therefore the Vill