IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 30275 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.N.BALAKRISHAN KAIMAL, 'UMAJAYAM' NEECHIPUZHOOR P.O. PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686574. BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SRI.M.R.ANISON SRI.P.S.ABHISHEK SMT.KAVYA P.PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT (URBAN DEPARTMENT)SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT, VIKAS BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 5. THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, THALASSEERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD FOR R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No. 30275 of 2008-D ------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.M.R.Anison, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.P.Nandakumar, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri.I.V.Pramod, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Thalassery Municipality. 2. The petitioner retired from service on 30.9.2001, while he was working as Executive Engineer in the Thalassery Municipality. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the non payment of pensionary benefits and seeking various other reliefs. 3. While the petitioner was working as Municipal Engineer in Kottayam Municipality, the Government placed him and five others under suspension by Ext.P3 order dated 30.5.2000, on the ground that a vigilance case has been registered against them by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Palakkad, in respect of acts of misconduct alleged to have been committed by them, while they were in service in Palakkad Municipality. Though the order of suspension was revoked on 6.3.2001, the period of suspension from 5.6.2000 to 6.3.2001 has not so far been regularized. The petitioner has also not been paid terminal benefits though provisional pension was sanctioned to him as per Ext.P1 order W.P(C) No. 30275 of 2008-D 2 dated 21.1.2003. It is stated that a vigilance case is pending against the petitioner and therefore provisional pension alone was paid. 4. It is now not in dispute that the petitioner is not an accused in the vigilance case and that he is only a witness. Therefore the contention of the petitioner that his suspension was unnecessary merits acceptance. However for the reason that the period of suspension has not been regularized till date, the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner have not been fixed or paid. In view of the fact that the petitioner is not involved in vigilance case as was wrongly assumed by the Government when it passed Ext.P3 order, I am of the opinion that the suspension of the petitioner was not really called for. I accordingly direct the Government to pass orders regarding regularsation of the period during which the petitioner was placed under suspension by Ext.P3 Government order dated 30.5.2000. Orders in that regard shall be passed within one month from the date on which the petitioner submits a request in that regard before the Secretary to Government, Local Self Government Department along with a certified copy of this judgment. The Government shall also thereupon issue necessary instructions to the Director of Urban Affairs to fix the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner and also to issue necessary instructions regarding disbursement of the same. 5. The petitioner has further grievance that though higher W.P(C) No. 30275 of 2008-D 3 grade was sanctioned to him with effect from 12.7.2000, he was given the benefit of higher grade only with effect from 6.6.2001 after he was reinstated in service following the revocation of the order of suspension. In my opinion, this is also a matter which the Government should consider while passing orders as directed above. It will open to the petitioner to raise this claim also in the representation which he files before the Government. The petitioner has a grievance regarding surrender of causal leave in terms of the 1993 pay revision. The petitioner can raise this claim also before the Government. 6. The petitioner has yet another grievance about Ext.P8 show cause notice and Ext.P11 memo of charges. Ext.P8 show cause notice dated 24.7.2008 was issued nearly seven years after the petitioner retired from service. He along with seven others was proceeded against for realisation of the sum of Rs.2,52,300/- stated to be the loss sustained by the Government and the sum of Rs.25,230/- stated to be the loss sustained by Thalassery Municipality. The claims relates to 1948 empty tar barrels the contents of which were used during the period from 1.4.1999 to 4.11.2002. Ext.P8 discloses that the petitioner was the Executive Engineer, Thalassery Municipalty only during the period from 7.3.2001 to 30.9.2001. There is no material to indicate even remotely that there was shortage of barrels during the said period. Ext.P8 does not give the details regarding the number of barrels available in the stock W.P(C) No. 30275 of 2008-D 4 as on 7.3.2001 and the number of barrels as on 30.9.2001. In the absence of such details it would not be just or fair to call upon the petitioner, seven years after his retirement from service to show cause why he shall not be proceeded against for realization of the loss said to have been caused to the Government. I therefore direct that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner as per Ext.P8 shall be dropped. 7. The last grievance relates to Ext.P11 memo of charges dated 19.6.2000. Though Ext.P11 memo was issued before the petitioner retired from service and the petitioner had submitted Ext.P12 representation for permission to peruse the relevant files for the purpose of filing his written statement of defence, such permission was not given to him for the reason that the relevant files were not available. The allegation against the petitioner in Ext.P11 is that he had executed a revised work without administrative sanction for such revised work. There is no allegation in Ext.P11 that any pecuniary loss has been caused to the Government or the Municipality by reason of the alleged act of misconduct. If at all administrative sanction was required for the revised estimate, the files should have been placed before the Municipal Council for its concurrence. Since nine years have passed after the work was executed and no loss is alleged to have been caused to the Palakkad Municipality, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner as per W.P(C) No. 30275 of 2008-D 5 Ext.P11 memo of charges shall stand dropped. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. If the petitioner has any other subsisting grievance it will open to him to file an appropriate representation setting out such grievances before the Government. The Government shall in the event of such a representation being filed, consider the same and pass orders thereon expeditiously. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge