IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23714 of 2008(W)
1. S.SURENDRANATH, RETIRED ACCOUNTS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SC KSHB, TVM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :10/02/2009
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No.23714 of 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 10th February,2009
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking
for quashing Exhibit-P3 and for a direction to the 1st
respondent to disburse the full pension and all retiral
benefits including DCRG and commuted value of pension.
Petitioner was an employee of the Kerala State Housing
Board and he retired from service on 30.6.2005. On the
basis of certain allegations against him, petitioner was
suspended from service on 28.3.2005. Exhibit-P1 is the
memo of charges which was issued based on the
allegations contained in the suspension order. Petitioner
was served with Exhibit-P2 show cause notice issued by
the Secretary of the Housing Board. Thereafter, by order
dated 24.6.2005, the suspension was revoked and finally
he retired from service on 30.6.2005. Contending that
the respondents are not disbursing the due retiral
benefits, this writ petition has been moved.
W.P ( C) No.23714 of 2009
2
2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd
respondent, it is submitted that a vigilance enquiry in
VE/18/05/IDK is being conducted against the petitioner
who was the former Accounts Officer and some other
employees also. There are various allegations against the
parties concerned.
3. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions,
submits that at least nine months time is required to
complete the investigation and to finalise the proceedings
against the petitioner.
4. Petitioner is now receiving only the provisional
pension. The question is whether the payment of
retirement benefits could be postponed like anything
merely because of the pendency of the investigation. May
be the investigation is a time consuming process and
requires employment of sufficient investigating officers to
find out the truth of the allegations.
5. Even though nine months’ time has been sought,
I think in the interest of justice, the respondents can be
granted six months’ time from today to complete the
W.P ( C) No.23714 of 2009
3
investigation against the petitioner and finalise the
liability, if any, in the matter also.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
directing the 2nd respondent to complete the investigation
within a period of six months from today. Depending upon
the outcome of the same, appropriate action will be taken
by the 1st respondent to disburse the retirement benefits.
No costs.
(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No.23714 of 2009
4
W.P ( C) No.23714 of 2009
5