IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15246 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.SURENDRANATH, RETIRED ACCOUNTS OFFICER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, RESIDING AT `SINDOORAM' MULLAPPILLY ROAD, KIZHAKKE KADUNGALLOOR, ALUVA-683 102. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 15246/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DTD.24.6.05. P2. COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD.24.6.05. P3. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.27.11.07. P4. COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.2.2.08 FROM THE STATE INFORMATION OFFICER. P5. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 23714/08 OF THIS COURT. P6. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.14.12.09 IN I.A.No. 15588/09 IN W.P.(C).No. 23714/08. P7. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.6.8.2010 TO R1. P8. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.6.1.2011 TO R1. P9. COPY OF THE SUMMONS BY THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE KOTTAYAM. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 15246 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 17th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner retired from service as an Accounts Officer of the 1st respondent, on 30.6.2005. When DCRG due to the petitioner was not disbursed even after three years on the ground that a vigilance enquiry is pending, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (C).No.23714/2008. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment, directing the 2nd respondent to complete the investigation within a period of six months from the date of that judgment with a further direction that depending upon the outcome of the same, appropriate action shall be taken by the 1st respondent to disburse the retirement benefits due to the petitioner. Subsequently, by Ext.P6 order, that period was extended by one year. But even after the expiry of the extended period also, the investigation has not been completed. Still the DCRG due to the petitioner has not been disbursed. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs; “a) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside Exhibits (sic) P3. b) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the 1st respondent to disburse the petitioner's full pension and all retiral benefits including DCRG and commuted value of pension forthwith.” 2. The petitioner relies on the decision of this Court in Aravindaksha Panicker v. Accountant General [2007 (4) KLT 1031] in support of the contention that pendency of a vigilance enquiry is not a 2 ground for withholding DCRG due to a retired Government servant. 3. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent also. 4. More than six years have already elapsed after the retirement of the petitioner. As is usual, end of the vigilance enquiry is nowhere in sight. A learned Single Judge of this Court has in Aravindaksha Panicker's case (supra) held that on the ground of vigilance enquiry, DCRG due to an employee cannot be withheld insofar as even if the vigilance enquiry results against the delinquent, what the State can do is only to withhold part of the pension due to the delinquent either as loss caused to the State or as a punishment to the delinquent. Following that decision, I am inclined to direct the respondents to disburse the DCRG due to the petitioner. However, the petitioner shall execute a bond under Rule 116 as security. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to disburse the DCRG due to the petitioner on his submitting a bond under Rule 116. The amount shall be disbursed within one month from the date of submission of the bond. This is without prejudice to the right of the respondents to continue the vigilance investigation. The other claims of the petitioner, in the writ petition, are left open to be agitated again, if necessity arises. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 3