High Court Kerala High Court

V.S. Narendran vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 14 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
V.S. Narendran vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 14 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 19712 of 2008(V)


1. V.S. NARENDRAN, S/O SANKARAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,

3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E),

4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI.

                For Petitioner  :SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :14/07/2008

 O R D E R
                             V.GIRI,J.
                      -------------------------
                  W.P ( C) No.19712 of 2008
                      --------------------------
                Dated this the 14th July, 2008

                        J U D G M E N T

Petitioner, who retired from service on 31.10.2004

as an L.D. Clerk, is aggrieved that retirement benefits

due to him have not been disbursed so far.

It is contended on behalf of the respondents that

there is a vigilance case pending against the petitioner as

C.CNo.35/2001 before the Enquiry Commissioner and

Special Judge, Thrissur, in which, the petitioner was

Accused No.5. While so, petitioner retired from service.

DCRG is withheld on account of the pendency of the

vigilance case. Apparently, loss by the petitioner is

assessed at Rs.2,30,560/-.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

no notice has been received by the petitioner with regard

to the said aspect and therefore liability was not fixed

within a period of three years from the date of retirement.

In circumstances where the liability has not been fixed

W.P ( C) No.19712 of 2008
2

within three years, it is not possible to withhold the DCRG

due to the petitioner. It is further submitted that period of

suspension of the petitioner is to be regularised.

3. In so far as the prayer for regularisation of the

period of suspension, in my view, vigilance case against the

petitioner has to be completed and orders under Rule 56

Part I of the K.S.R. could be passed only after completion of

the vigilance case. But there is no justification to withhold

the DCRG.

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing

the 2nd respondent to take steps to disburse to the

petitioner the DCRG due to him within a period of six weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Obviously, the right of the Government to take appropriate

steps to recover the loss, if any, by the petitioner will be

unaffected by this Court’s order or the disbursal of the

DCRG pursuant thereto.

(V.GIRI, JUDGE)
ma

W.P ( C) No.19712 of 2008
2

W.P ( C) No.19712 of 2008
2