IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 4580 of 2009(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.KESAVAN, S/O.VELUMBAN, RETIRED ATTENDER, KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR CHRISTIAN CONVERTS FROM SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE RECOMMENDED COMMUNITIES LIMITED, KOTTAYAM, RESIDING AT KARAZHITHARA HOUSE, SOORANADU NORTH, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SC/ST DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE AND ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU, VIGILANCE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR CHRISTIAN CONVERTS AND RECOMMENDED COMMUNITIES LIMITED, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 4580 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner was working in the post of Attender in the third respondent Corporation. He retired from service on 1.10.2006 after attaining 23 years of service. He is a member of Scheduled Caste, namely Pulay a community. Initially he was appointed as a Class-IV employee in 1981 and he was promoted to the post of Attender during 1987. 2. Pursuant to a vigilance case No.8/200, he was suspended from service. The same was challenged in O.P. No.5352 of 2002 and this Court directed the Government to consider the application to review the suspension. Again he filed O.P.No.9937 of 2003 seeking for a direction to the Government to complete the investigation and enquiry against the petitioner. Ext.P1 is the judgment in the said petition. Pursuant to the directions in the above judgment, the petitioner was reinstated in service and posted in the Regional office of the 3rd respondent. 3. The petitioner moved before the 3rd respondent for transfer in the light of Government order dated 27.4.2000. Thereafter, he filed W.P.(C) No.12636 of 2005, wherein there was direction to consider his representation and he was transferred. The petitioner retired from service on 1.10.2006. Since his retirement benefits were not wpc/4580/2009 2 disbursed in time, he filed W.P.(C) No.10613 of 2007. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, as per Ext.P2 order the same were disbursed. 4. A co-accused who was involved in a vigilance case No.8/2001/KTM approached this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No.17233 of 2007 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. This was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment. It was declared that without sanction or prosecution there is no scope for proceeding against the petitioner therein. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation requesting him to drop the criminal charges against him and again he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.35534 of 2005. He also relying a Circular No.11375/E3/O/Vig. dated 15.11.2004 to withdraw from the criminal charges. Another accused one Sri.B.Philip requested to withdraw the prosecution against him and he also filed W.P.(C) No.3274 of 2006. Ext.P4 is the judgment therein. The petitioner has produced legal opinion of learned Advocate General in that matter as Ext.P5. He moved before the Government to withdraw the prosecution against him. Ultimately, by Ext.P12 the said request was rejected. The petitioner has produced herein Ext.P13 order passed in C.C.No.38/2004 by which petitioners therein were discharged. 5. This was mainly for the reason that prosecution sanction was not issued by the Board of Directors in respect of accused 2,4 and 7. The petitioner contends that the reasoning therein will apply to this wpc/4580/2009 3 case also. Accordingly, he sought to review the matter by filing Ext.P14, even though it titled as a review petition. It is pointed out that all the arguments raised by the petitioners have not been considered. Since Ext.P14 is pending before the Government and since the petitioner is relying upon Ext.P13 and other materials the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is for reconsideration in the matter. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P14 in the light of additional materials produced by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE bps