IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 31957 of 2006(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- DR.M.VIJAYAN (RETD), DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICE, GANGOTHRI, NEAR G.L.P.S., CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR BY SMT. T.J. SEEMA RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, KOZHIKODE. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT IMPLEADED ----------------------------------------------------- 4. THE PROJECT OFFICER, RCH SUB CENTRE, CORPORATION OFFICE BUILDING, KOZHIKODE ADDITIONAL R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A. NO.16130 OF 2007 DATED 7.12.2007 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI NANDAKUMAR SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,SC,KOZHIKODE CORP FOR ADDL.R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C) NO. 31957 OF 2006 ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ---------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.718/04 FILED BY SHRI V.PARTHASARATHY BEFORE THE KERALA LOKAYUKTA. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GRATUITY PAYMENT ORDER DATED 30.8.2006. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, KOZHIKODE DATED 31.5.2006 ADDRESSED TO THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR (PLANNING) AND PROJECT DIRECTOR (RCH). RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ------------------------------------- V. GIRI, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) NO.31957 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T -------------------- The Petitioner retired from service while he was working as Deputy Director, Health Services. He is aggrieved by the non-disbursal of the DCRG amount. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the second respondent. It reads as follows: “.......The DCRG can be released only after getting the Liability Certificate/Non- Liability Certificate from the Institution where Dr.M.Vijayan worked for the last three years prior to his retirement. As such, the District Medical Officer of Health, Kozhikode has furnished the Non- Liability Certificate in respect of Dr.M. Vijayan for the period from 1.8.2004 to 31.1.2006. But the Non-Liability Certificate for the period from 6.5.2002 to 31.7.2004 has not received till date. The Non-Liability Certificate for the above period is to be issued by the Project W.P(C) NO.31957 OF 2006 -: 2 :- Director, RCH, Directorate of Health Services, since the petitioner was on deputation at RCK Project under Kozhikode Corporation. The District Medical Officer of Health, Kozhikode has reported that Liability Certificate/Non- Liability Certificate in respect of Dr.Vijayan is pending not because of the case filed before the Kerala Lok Ayukta which was dismissed but due to Vigilance Enquiry pending against Dr. M.Vijayan vide file No.V3/31/2005 of Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kozhikode”. 3. Since the Non-liability Certificate in respect of the subsequent period has been issued, I am of the view that the retirement benefits due to the petitioner can be released in terms of Exhibit P3 order. This may be made subject to a condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond since the Non-liability Certificate for the period from 6.5.2002 to 31.7.2004 is not yet issued. Further, it is to be noted that the delay in the issuance of the Non-liability Certificate for the said period is on account of the pendency of the vigilance W.P(C) NO.31957 OF 2006 -: 3 :- enquiry against the petitioner. 4. This Court in the judgment reported in Rajagopalan v. T.D. Board (2007 (2) KLT 801) held that a vigilance enquiry as such will not tantamount to a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Rule 3A of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to issue appropriate orders of authorisation so as to enable the petitioner to receive the DCRG amount due to him in terms of Exhibit P3 order of sanction within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It shall be on condition that the petitioner furnishes a bond in terms of Rule 116 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. V. GIRI, JUDGE. vsv