IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 1ST AUGUST 2011 / 10TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20500 of 2011(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- VENUGOPALAN NAIR, S/O.K.V.NARAYANAN NAIR, T.C.37/938, 'ASWATHY',VAYALKKONAM, THIRUVAMALA P.O.,THIRUVANNATHAPURAM-695006 BY ADV. SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT: --------------- SURVEY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF SURVERY & LAND RECORDS VAZHUTHAKKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 20500 of 2011(J) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S APPENDIX: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 1.2.2011 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 26.2.2011 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE jma C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 20500 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a retiree from the service of Department of Survey and Land Records. He retired from its service on 31.3.2010 while working as Head Surveyor. While he was in service, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and it could not be finalised even, till the date of his retirement. On account of the non-finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings respondents have not so far issued No Liability Certificate. In short, for that reason, the petitioner was not given his retiral benefits including DCRG. In fact DCRG to the tune of Rs.1,33,000/- was admitted to him. It was in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed mainly with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to finalise the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him while he was in service, in accordance with law, within a time limit. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. Admittedly, WPC.No.20500/2011 : 2 : disciplinary proceedings were initiated while the petitioner was in service and it could not be finalised while he was in service. In such circumstances, disciplinary proceedings could not be continued for the purpose of imposition of a penalty. Its continuance can only be for the permissible purpose, in accordance with law. In short, it is to be finalised by the respondents in accordance with law, and it cannot be kept pending without appropriate action, in accordance with law. In that view of the matter this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to finalise the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, as is obvious from Ext.P1, in accordance with law, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge