SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Ker) 108

High Court of Kerala
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JJ.
R. Dinakaran, Thiruvananthapuram
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented By Its Secretary To Government, Taxes Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Another
OP(KAT).No. 69 of 2014 (Z), TA. No.1213 of 2012 IN WP(C).No. 14753 of 2006
Decided On: 18-02-2014

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:P.J. Elvin Peter, T.G. Sunil (Pranavam), K.R. Ganesh, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Noble Mathew, Sr. Govt. Pleader.

Headnote:

Kerala Service Rules - Rule. 59(b - Discrimination - Non satisfactory performance of employee - Power of Government to make reduction in amount - Scope of - Held, Kerala Administrative Tribunal has refused to interfere with that holding that the Government was within the jurisdiction in terms of Rule 59(b) of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules, provides that 'if the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, Government may make such reduction in the amounts as they think proper'-measure qua a particular employee. The application of Rule 59(b) and the resultant decision cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny on the ground of hostile discrimination with reference to any other employee

Judgment

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

Petitioner was a Deputy Commissioner in the State Excise Department, when the infamous incident known as kalluvathukkal tragedy occurred. Going by the records and the submissions, many of the officers, who were responsible to supervise and enforce excise discipline, went scot free or with flee bite. The Government, ultimately, reduced the pension of the petitioner by `200/- per month. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal has refused to interfere with that holding that the Government was within the jurisdiction in terms of Rule 59(b) of Part-III of the Kerala Service Rules, which provides that 'if the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the Government may make such reduction in the amounts as they think proper'. This is, essentially, a measure qua a particular employee. Therefore, the application of Rule 59(b) and the resultant decision cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny on the ground of hostile discrimination with reference to any other employee either in the same category or in a different category. The Tribunal having exercised its jurisdiction in terms of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and it having looked into the material particulars to arrive at such decision, we do not find any ground to visit it in exercise of authority under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This original petition, therefore, fails.

In the result, this original petition is dismissed in limine.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top