IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 1769 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.83/2008 Dated 13/07/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WPC. -------------------------------- P.A.KHALID, (ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES,RETD.) SANAS,ELOOR EAST,UDYOGAMANDAL-683 501. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SHARAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC. ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FISHERIES DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, FISHERIES AND PORTS (A DEPARTMENT), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------------- W.A. No. 1769 of 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2010. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair , J. The appellant was the writ petitioner. He approached this Court feeling aggrieved by the delay from the part of the respondents to release the DCRG due to him. He claims payment of DCRG with 12% interest. The DCRG was released to him during the pendency of the writ petition. What remains is the claim for interest. The learned Single Judge declined to consider the claim of the appellant for interest and turned him away to agitate his claim before other appropriate forums. Hence this appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following. The petitioner retired from service as Additional Director of Fisheries on 31.5.2006. He has worked as Deputy Director of Fisheries, Thiruvananthapuram during 8.4.1985 to 31.10.1987. At the relevant time, certain files relating to a case were found to be missing. A vigilance enquiry was conducted to find out the persons responsible for missing of the files. The vigilance submitted their report on 17.10.2003. It was found that the appellant was primarily responsible for the safe custody of the files. But he failed to exercise due diligence to ensure the safe custody of the files. It was based on the said finding against him, he was served with Ext.P6 show cause notice calling upon him to explain why disciplinary action should not be initiated against W.A. No. 1769 of 2009 2 him. It was served on 27.3.2006, two months before his retirement. He submitted Ext.P7 reply on 4.4.2006. Thereafter, after a lapse of about one year, he was served with Ext.P10 memo of charges dated 7.3.2007 alleging that he failed to issue appropriate instructions to the clerks under him to ensure the safety of the files mentioned above. He submitted his explanation by Ext.P11 dated 24.3.2007. The Government took two years to finalise the proceedings. Finally, as per Annexure I dated 3.7.2009, the Government closed the proceedings against the appellant. In the meantime, this writ petition was filed in December 2007. Finally when the writ petition came up for hearing on 13.7.2009, both sides submitted that the proceedings against the petitioner have been finally closed on 3.7.2009 and therefore, the writ petition was closed. Though the appellant/petitioner claimed interest, the learned Single Judge declined to consider that prayer and directed the petitioner to agitate his claim before other appropriate forums. This appeal is therefore filed by the appellant claiming interest. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appeal claiming interest alone is not maintainable. Further the facts being disputed, evidence has to be taken and the learned single Judge has rightly turned him away to invoke the remedies available to him before other forums. In answer, the learned counsel for the appellant brought to our notice the decision of the Apex Court in Dua v. State of Haryana [2008 W.A. No. 1769 of 2009 3 (3) KLT 58 (SC)] wherein the Apex Court reversed the judgment of Punjab and Haryanna High Court declining to entertain a writ petition claiming interest alone. 4. We notice that the writ petition was not one filed for claiming interest alone. It was also filed for release of DCRG. An Incidental relief was one concerning payment of interest. From the facts disclosed, there was a delay of more than three years in releasing DCRG. Since the vigilance proceedings were pending, of course, immediately after the retirement, the DCRG could not have been released to the appellant. So, some delay from the part of the respondents may be justified. But we notice that after the receipt of Ext.P7 reply dated 4.4.2006, the first step taken thereafter was issuance of Ext.P10 on 7.3.2007. There is a delay of about one year. Later, after the receipt of Ext.P11 reply dated 24.3.2007, final orders were passed on 3.7.2009. Here also there is a delay of about two years. Finally, the petitioner was absolved off the blame and the entire DCRG was released to him. 5. We notice that the above facts are not disputed. Though the respondents may say the delay was justified, but the factum of delay remains undisputed. Having regard to the above said facts of the case, we feel that the appellant is entitled to get interest atleast for one year. Accordingly, it is ordered that the competent authority among the W.A. No. 1769 of 2009 4 respondents shall pay interest at the rate of 6% for one year for the DCRG paid to him. This shall be done within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. The writ appeal is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR Judge P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vps