IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 OP.No. 29649 of 2001(D) ----------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.C.CHACKO S/O.CHACKO KANDATHIL HOUSE, THOOTHUTTI BHAGAM, THIRUVANCHOOR, MANARCADU, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, SECREARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 29649 of 2001(D) 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1 : COPY OF CHARGE SHEET DT.24/2/98 ISSUED BY THE C.I CHANGANASSERRY TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P2 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 30/10/98 IN ST1597/98 OF THE JFMC NO.I KOTTAYAM. Exhibit P3 : COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT.3/4/99 ISSUED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY (HOME DEPARTMENT) TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P4 : COPY OF ORDER 3726/1999 (HOME) DT.20/7/1999 ISSUED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P5 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.12/2/2000 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 14/9/2000 SEND BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P7 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 14/2/2001 SEND BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER SANCTIONING PENSIONERY BENEFITS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------- O.P No.29649 of 2001-D ----------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2009. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.M.J.Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, a Police Constable who retired from service on 31.10.1998, has filed this writ petition seeking payment of interest on the delayed payment of DCRG and commuted value of pension. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 3. The petitioner was a Police Constable attached to Pampady Police Station. On the ground that he was involved in two criminal cases, he was placed under suspension on 14.1.1998. Thereafter, Ext.P1 memo of charges dated 24.2.1998 was issued and served on him by the Circle Inspector of Police, Changanassery, the competent disciplinary authority. The charge against the petitioner was that by being implicated as the accused in Crime Nos.221 of 1997 and 271 of 1997 of Manarcadu Police Station, he has brought disrepute to the Police force. The first case was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 51(A) of the Kerala Police Act for drunken and disorderly behaviour. The second case was one alleging commission of the offences punishable O.P No.29649 of 2001-D 2 under Section 447, 341, 323 read with 34 IPC. In the first case, the petitioner was acquitted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kottayam by Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 30.10.1998. While the said case was under trial, the petitioner was reinstated in the service on 2.7.1998. After investigation of the second case, the investigating officer filed a final report exonerating the petitioner. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, the day after he was acquitted by Ext.P2 judgment. 4. After the petitioner retired from service, the Government issued Ext.P3 show cause notice dated 3.4.1999 calling the petitioner to show cause why his pension should not be reduced by Rs.20/- per month for a period of ten years under Rule 59 of Part III of the KSR. The petitioner submitted a reply. The Government thereafter issued Ext.P4 order dated 20.7.1999 reducing the petitioner's pension by Rs.20/- per month for a period of ten years. The petitioner did not challenge Ext.P4. However, the terminal benefits were sanctioned to him only in January 2001 and disbursed in March 2001. This writ petition was thereupon filed on 3.10.2001 claiming interest for the delayed payment of DCRG and commuted value of pension. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent wherein it is stated that after the petitioner's retirement from service only provisional pension was O.P No.29649 of 2001-D 3 sanctioned to him in January/February 1999 for the reason that the disciplinary action initiated against him was pending. It is also stated that the period from 14.1.1998 to 2.7.1998 when the petitioner was kept under suspension was regularised by the Government as duty only by order dated 13.4.2000, that thereupon he was also given the benefit of the 1998 pay revision and his pay was fixed on 7.8.2000 in accordance with the stipulations in G.O(P) No.3000/98/Fin. dated 25.11.1998. It is stated that thereafter the proposal to sanction and pay pensionary benefits was forwarded to the Accountant General. It is stated that payment of terminal benefits was sanctioned on 21.8.2000, the pensionary claims were admitted on 14.2.2001 and thereafter paid on 21.3.2001. It is stated that there was no undue delay on the part of the respondents in sanctioning and paying terminal benefits to the petitioner. 5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. It is evident from the pleadings and the materials on record that the disciplinary action that was pending against the petitioner at the time of his retirement on 31.10.1998 could not have been continued after such retirement for the reason that the acts of misconduct alleged against the petitioner did not involve any pecuniary loss to the Government. Disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner for the reason that he was involved in two criminal O.P No.29649 of 2001-D 4 cases. In the first case he was acquitted and in the second case his name was deleted from the array of accused when the final report was filed. The judgment of acquittal was passed and the final report filed before the petitioner retired from service. Therefore, the State, should be deemed to be aware of the fact that the criminal cases registered against the petitioner were not pending on the date on which he retired from service. However, it took the Government nearly two years to regularise the period during which the petitioner was kept under suspension as duty. The period of suspension was regularised only on 13.4.2000. In the meanwhile, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 59(b) to reduce his pension and orders in that regard were issued on 20.7.1999. In my opinion, there was no justification for the delay in passing orders in the matter of regularising the period of suspension. The Government ought to have, in my opinion, acted with dispatch and regularised the period of suspension earlier. The Government appears to have taken its own time and adopted a leasurely attitude, when it passed orders on 15.4.2000 regularising the period during which the petitioner was kept under suspension, namely from 14.1.1998 to 2.7.1998. As a result thereof, the pay of the petitioner was fixed in implementation of 1998 pay revision only on 7.8.2000. The petitioner retired from service on 31.10.1998. Since the acts of misconduct levelled against him did not O.P No.29649 of 2001-D 5 result in any pecuniary loss to the Government, it could not have withheld payment of the DCRG. Even if the petitioner had not been given the benefit of the 1998 pay revision, the Government could have sanctioned to him DCRG based on the salary he was then drawing and could have revised the terminal benefits later. In such circumstances it cannot be said that there was no culpable delay on the part of the respondents in sanctioning and disbursing terminal benefits. I accordingly hold that the petitioner is entitled to be compensated by award of interest at the rate of 7.5% on the sum of Rs.1,36,660/- paid to him as DCRG during the period from 1.1.1999 to 21.3.2001. Interest on the said sum of Rs.1,36,660/- at the aforesaid rate shall be paid to the petitioner, within two months from the date on which he produces a certified copy of the judgment before the Superintendent of Police, Kottayam. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab