The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power under Rule 59(b) of Part III KSR should be exercised objectively and not as a shortcut for disciplinary proceedings. The government's actions were deemed a colorable exercise of power and illegal.

JUDGMENT :

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

The prayer in the afore captioned Original Petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India is as follows (See page No.13 of the paper book of this O.P) :

“.. …...to call for records leading to order dated 11-04-2018 in O.A (Ekm) No.954/2015 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench and to set aside the same dismissing the above Original Application.”

2. Heard Sri. Antony Mukkath, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners (Secretary to Government & Transport Commissioner) in the O.P/respondents in the O.A and Sri.O.D.Sivadas, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent in the O.P/sole applicant in the O.A before the Tribunal.

3. The brief of the facts relating to the issuance of the impugned Anx.A6 order dated 25-06-2012 issued in purported exercise of the powers under Rule 59(b) of Part III KSR, as confirmed in the impugned Anx.A8 order dated 21-10-2014 rejecting the Review Petition in that regard is as follows:

While the original applicant was working as Regional Transport Officer (RTO), Kozhikode, in the Transport Department and was also holding the additional charge of RTO, Wayanad, disciplinary action was initiated against him as per Anx.A1 Memo of Charges dated 07-01-2020 along with the statement of allegations and imputations attached thereto, as per Anx.A2. The allegations are to the effect that the applicant has committed grave negligence and dereliction of duty in having failed to produce the superior officer's inspection remarks register in spite of asking for the same and that files were piled in bundles sacked away in sacks all over the office, without taking any action whatsoever to destroy the out dated/expired dossiers and that he failed to attend any revenue recovery (RR) conference convened by the Addl District Magistrate, Kozhikode. In reply to Anxs.A1 Memo of Charges issued by the competent authority of the Government and Anx.A2 Statement of allegations, the original applicant has submitted Anx.A3 reply dated 24-03-2010 to the competent authority concerned. It appears that no further action was taken in pursuance of Anx.A1 & Anx.A2 and that the applicant had thereafter retired from service on 31-01-2011. Much after his retirement, the competent authority of the State Government in the Transport Department has issued the impugned Anx.A4 show cause notice dated 30-01-2012 directing the applicant to show cause as to why an amount of Rs.500/-per month should not be reduced by recourse to the powers conferred under Rule 59(b) of Part III Kerala Service Rules (KSR), in view of the allegations raised earlier, which are almost replication of the allegations dealt with in Anx.A1 Memo of charges & Anx.A2 Statement of allegations. The applicant had duly submitted Anx.A5 reply dated 02-03-2012 to the competent authority concerned. Thereafter, the competent authority of the State Government has issued the impugned Anx.A6 order dated 25-06-2012, ordering that an amount of Rs.500/-will be withheld/reduced from the monthly pension sanctioned to the applicant, as his service was found thoroughly not to be satisfactory.

A reading of the impugned Anx.A6 order dated 25-06-2012 would disclose that the main grounds for taking action thereunder were in relation to the allegations raised in Anx.A4 show cause notice, which as mentioned hereinabove, is a replication of the earlier allegations, which found a place in Anx.A1 Memo of Charges & Anx.A2 Statement of allegations. Being aggrieved by Anx.A6, the applicant had preferred a review petition in terms of Note 2 of Rule 59 (b) read with Rule 35 of KCS(CC&A) Rules before the competent authority of the State Government. Thereafter, the competent authority concerned has dismissed Anx.A7 Review Petition as per the impugned Anx.A8 order dated 21-10-2014, holding that there are no grounds for reviewing the matter ordered in Anx.A6. It is these proceedings at Anxs.A6 & A8 that is be