The petitioner is working as Villageman and is due to retire from service within a few months. The subject matter of the writ petition is the challenge against Exts.P8 and P10 orders whereby the disciplinary proceedings dropped earlier have been directed to he started afresh.

2. The petitioner was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 order dated 20.9,1990. Apart from the disciplinary proceedings taken, a criminal complaint was registered against him. By Ext.P2 he was reinstated in service without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings. After the criminal court by judgment dated 11.11.1994 in C.C. No.422/1990 acquitted him by Ext.P3 judgment, the 3rd respondent issued orders treating the period of unauthorised absence as leave and to treat the period of suspension as duty. This was done after dropping the disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, half pay leave from 11.5.1990 to 19.6.1990 was sanctioned and to sanction as leave without allowance the period from 20.6.1990 to 1.11.1990, application was forwarded to the Secretary, Board of Revenue by the District Collector as per Ext.P5, Three years later, he was issued with a memo of charges containing two charges. The petitioner tiled an explanation by way of Ext.P7. Thereafter by Ext.P8 the District Collector issued a show cause notice proposing to cancel the proceedings dated 30.6.1995 and 21.6.1996 whereby the disciplinary proceedings were dropped and consequential orders were passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. To the above notice he submitted explanation Ext.P9 and now by Ext.P10 the District Collector has cancelled those proceedings and allowed him to continue in service without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner is challenging the said orders on various grounds.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the disciplinary proceedings having been finalised as per Ext.P4 and as the two periods namely, 11.5.1990 to 19.6.1990 and the later period of 135 days was also sought to be regularised by appropriate orders, the action taken by the District Collector, based on a letter from the Government, three years after the disciplinary proceedings were dropped cannot be sustained, Relying on R.37 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules it is submitted that the maximum period within which an order passed by the disciplinary authority can be reviewed is only one year and the present order has been issued after three years and therefore the same is not sustainable.

5. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent it is admitted in para.3 that the RDO as per proceedings dated 30.6.1995 ordered to sanction the leave applied for by the incumbent and to treat the remaining period of suspension as duty. After passing Ext.P4 the matter was taken up with the Government for regularizing the period for which leave without allowance applied for namely, 20.6.1990 to 1.11.1990 as per R.88(ii), Part I, KSR. When the matter was examined by the Government, the Government found that the dropping of the disciplinary proceedings is irregular and accordingly by Ext.R2(a) letter dated 3.11.1997 the District Collector was directed to invoke further steps in this regard. Since the action taken by the RDG is only on the basis of the judgment in the criminal proceedings, the other charges could be proceeded with and thereafter the memo of charges was issued. Thereafter subsequent proceedings were passed and finally as per order dated 10.6.2000 punishment has been imposed.

6. It is clear from the averments of the counter affidavit that Ext.P4 has been passed by the RDO after dropping the disciplinary proceedings. A reading of Ext.P4 would show that the RDO has passed the said order by proceedings dated 30.6.1995 numbered as A1-6882/90. Actually Ext.P4 is only a modification of the said order since in the first order the relevan