Judges : P.NARAYANA PILLAI
M.C.JOSEPH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS - Respondent
Case No : O. P. No. 748 of 1970
Decided On : 02/16/1973
Advocates Appeared :
K. Chandrasekharan; T. Chandrasekhara Menon; For Petitioner Government Pleader; For Respondent
QUASHING - LIABILITY - KERALA CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1960 - Ext. P19 - Para.4 of Ext. P1 - Rule of natural equity - Arbitrariness in decision - Shrinkage in rice stock - Excessive weight of Burma rice - Inconsistent treatment of employees - Quashing of orders and subsequent proceedings
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Godown Keeper in the Foodgrains depot, was held liable for shortage in rice stock. Despite representations, the Government's decision was against the petitioner. The petitioner sought to quash the orders and subsequent proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The Government's disposal of the petitioner's representation was in disregard of the court's direction. The Government's decision was arbitrary and inconsistent with treatment of other employees. The court quashed the orders and subsequent proceedings, allowing the petitioner to recover costs.
Issues: Disregard of court's direction, arbitrary decision-making, inconsistent treatment of employees
Ratio Decidendi: The Government's decision-making process was arbitrary and disregarded the court's direction. The treatment of the petitioner was inconsistent with that of other employees, and the decision was not in line with natural equity.
Final Decision: The court quashed the orders and subsequent proceedings, allowing the petitioner to recover costs from the respondent.
1. What is sought to be quashed here is Ext. P19 order dated November 27s 1969 of the State Government, the first respondent, and certain proceeding, which preceded it. From May 2,1958 to June 9, 1960 the petitioner was a Godown Keeper in the Foodgrains depot at Ponnani under the Civil Supplies Department. During that period there was shortage in the stock of rice in that depot. By orders passed by the first respondent and the Board of Revenue, the second respondent, the liability of the petitioner for the shortage in the stock of rice was first fixed as Rs 8004.22. Later, on the recommendation of the Board of Revenue, the Government passed Ext. P11 order on August 27,1963 enhancing the rate of shortage or shrinkage allowance in the case of Palghat milled rice. Consequent on that the Board of Revenue sent Ext. P12 communication dated February 5, 1964 to the District Collector, Alleppey, the third respondent, informing him that the petitioner's liability for the shortage of rice found in the depot had been reduced from Rs. 8004.22 to Rs. 2703.26. When be was informed of it the petitioner sent first, Ext. P13 representation on June 4, 1964 and then Ext. P14 representation on October 20, 1964 to the Government stating that the shortage found was not on account of any fault of his. The Government in its turn informed him by Ext. P15 on September 19, 1966 that no further consideration was possible in his case. On September 26, 1966 the Board of Revenue by Ext. P16 informed the District Collector that the security amount offered by the petitioner had been adjusted towards the money due from him and requested the District Collector to recover from the petitioner's pay the balance due from him. The District Collector sent a copy of that communication to the petitioner. On October 17,1966 the petitioner filed before this Court O. P. No. 3741 of 1966 for quashing the proceedings which culminated in Ext. P16-order. That was dismissed. From that Writ Appeal No. 2251 of 1966 was filed. In disposing of that Writ Appeal on August 1, 1967 by Ext.P17 judgment a Division Bench of this Court observed that the petitioner proposed to move the Government for relief on the basis of some relevant materials ana directed the Government to consider the representation when made, and dispose of the same untrammelled by the decision under appeal. On September 1, 1967 the petitioner sent Ext. P18 representation to the Government It was that that was disposed of by the Government on November 27,1969 by Ext. order.
2. Even at the outset it has to be said that the disposal by the Government of Ext P18 representation by Ext. P19 order was in utter disregard of the direction given by this Court in Ext. P17 judgment Ext. P17 judgment reads. "The appellant proposes to move Government for relief, on the basis of Ext P6 and other relevant materials. Government will consider the representation when made, and dispose of the same untrammelled by the decision under appeal. The writ appeal is disposed of as above. The appellant will be free to move this Court afresh, if so advised, at a later stage. No costs." and the material portion of Ext. P19 order reads:
"I am to inform you that no reconsideration of the petition is necessary. The petition is
rejected"
The Government had already taken a decision against the petitioner. The representation that he proposed to make thereafter was for reconsideration of the matter and it was that this court directed the Government to consider meaning reconsideration. Grounds to show that the previous decision was wrong were given by him in Ext. P18 representation for reconsideration. It was stated in it that he had not violated any of the terms of the bond he had executed m favour of the Government and that no show-cause notice was issued to him m fixing the rate of shortage allowance. The Government said in Ext. P19 order that no reconsideration was necessary. To say that on reconsideration of the matter in the light of the gro
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.