Antony Dominic, J. This O.P is filed challenging the order passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in TA No.6767/12.
2. Petitioner joined service as a Part Time Arabic Teacher on 22/3/1972. He was later promoted as Full Time Arabic Teacher w.e.f. 17/8/1972. He served for 22 years. Thereafter, he applied for leave without allowances for taking up employment abroad for three years from 12/1/95. On expiry of the leave, instead of rejoining duty, he asked for extension of time. It appears that the application was forwarded to the Deputy Director of Education, Malappuram. However, no orders were received and therefore he made yet another application on 3/6/1998 for extension of leave. At that stage, he was issued Ext.P3 show cause notice dated 25/8/1998 and he filed an explanation. However, that was not accepted and Ext.P5 memo of charges was issued. According to the applicant, in the meanwhile, he attained the age of superannuation on 31/12/98. The disciplinary action concluded by Ext.P7 order dated 10/12/99 removing the petitioner from service w.e.f. 11/1/95. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an application before the Government on 17/2/2000. That was rejected by the Government by order dated 2/3/2001. Further representation was made on 27/2/2001, which was also rejected by the Government on 19/6/2002. Petitioner made another representation on 13/6/2002, which was also rejected by the Government on 6/1/2003. Thereafter, he made Ext.P8 describing itself to be a representation under Rule 34 of the Kerala Civil Services (CC & A) Rules. Petitioner states that the matter was heard by the Government and that orders were not passed. It is stated that it was in such circumstances that he filed WP(C) No.10577/08 before this Court in March, 2008. On the constitution of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, the case was transferred to the Tribunal, which numbered the case as TA No.6767/12. The Tribunal after hearing the parties and taking note of the pleadings of both sides, dismissed the OA by the impugned order. It is this order, which is under challenge before us.
3. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was removed from service without any enquiry or other proceedings and that as a result, he is deprived of pension for the long and unblemished service rendered by him, we do not think that in the facts of this case, it is necessary to deal with any of those contentions.
4. As we have already seen, his removal from service was by Ext.P7 order dated 10/12/1999. That order was confirmed by the Government by its order dated 2/3/2001. That stand taken by the Government was reiterated in further orders that were passed by the Government on 19/6/2002 and 6/1/2003. None of these orders were challenged by the petitioner and instead, he filed Ext.P8 dated 15/2/2003 describing it as a revision under Rule 34 of the Kerala Civil Services (CC&A) Rules. The Tribunal has rightly held that since the earlier orders have attained finality, Ext.P8 revision filed by the petitioner was not even maintainable. In other words, his removal from service effected in December, 1999, which was confirmed by the Government in its order dated 2/3/2001 and reiterated in the orders dated 19/6/2002 and 6/1/2003 had attained finality. In the writ petition filed only in 2008, without challenging the subsequent orders that were passed, he only challenged the removal order. In such circumstances, the Tribunal could not have interfered with the matter and rightly declined relief prayed for belatedly.
5. We also take note of the fact that despite all the above, the Government have granted the employee compassionate allowance.
O.P.(KAT) is dismissed.
Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE