The court reinforced that the regularization of suspension periods under the KSR must adhere to existing procedures and highlight the importance of substantiating claims in disciplinary matters.

JUDGMENT

Ravikumar, J.

This original petition is filed challenging the order dated

6.1.2007 passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A. (EKM)No.1063 of 2016. The petitioner herein who was the applicant therein moved the said original application seeking quashment of Annexure-A5 and also a direction to the respondents to grant pension and other service benefits reckoning the period of his suspension as duty. The Tribunal on considering the rival contentions passed the impugned order dismissing the original application. It is feeling aggrieved by the said order that the captioned original petition has been filed.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader.

3. The petitioner approached the Tribunal under the following circumstances:-

O.P.(KAT)No.58 of 2017 2 He retired from the service of Fisheries Department as Technical Assistant on 31.5.2004. While he was in service, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and before that, in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings he was placed under suspension as per order dated 22.4.2003. Later, he was reinstated in service pending disciplinary proceedings on 5.2.2004. Disciplinary proceedings initiated subsequently, against him on the allegation that he claimed travelling allowance by producing bogus certificates and it culminated in an order for recovering an amount of ₹ 4,344/-. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order and on being aggrieved by the delay in the matter of its consideration he moved the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.2030 of 2015. As per Annexure-A4 in Ext.P1, the said original application was disposed of as per order dated 20.11.2015 with a direction to the first respondent therein to pass appropriate orders on the appeal. It was in compliance with the direction thereunder that Annexure-A5 order dated 22.4.2016 was passed by the first respondent.

4. A perusal of Annexure-A5 order would reveal that the first respondent took note of the fact that the petitioner/applicant had not actually submitted anything in his appeal, touching the merits on O.P.(KAT)No.58 of 2017 3 the findings on the charge based on which he was found guilty. As noticed hereinbefore, the charge was that he claimed travelling allowance based on bogus certificates. Before the authorities, his claim was only for regularisation of the period of suspension as duty. In such circumstances, exercising the power under Rule 56B of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR) the period of suspension of the petitioner was regularised. He had been under suspension for a period of 294 days. He had to his credit 159 days of eligible leave and due credit was given to the same and the said 159 days was regularised by granting earned leave. 63 days had been treated as half pay leave and the remaining 72 days were regularised treating as leave without allowances. It is aggrieved by the manner in which the period of suspension was regularised in exercise of the power under Rule 56B of Part I of KSR under Annexure-A5 that the original application was filed.

5. Evidently, after hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials on record, the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the applicant had not produced any documents to substantiate his contention that he had undertaken the journey in question on due authorisation from his superior officers. The Tribunal also found that even before the Tribunal he had not produced any documents in support of his contentions. In such circumstances, it was found that the O.P.(KAT)No.58 of 2017 4 contention of the petitioner that he had undertaken the journey with due authorisation from his superior officers is not supported by any materials and in such circumstances, there is absolutely no reason to uphold the said contention. With respect to the manner in which his period of suspension was regularised under Rule 56B of Part I of KSR the Tribunal did not find any illegality or irregularity warran