THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT vs K. CHANDRAN

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 283

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, M. M. SUNDRESH
THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT – Appellant
Versus
K. CHANDRAN – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR Mr. Abdullah Naseeh V.T., Adv. Ms. Meena K.P., Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Roy Abraham, Adv. Ms. Reena Roy, Adv. Ms. Seema Jain, Adv. Mr. Akhil Abraham, Adv. Mr. Himinder Lal, AOR Mr. P. K. Manohar, AOR Mr. Renjith B. Marar, Adv. Ms. Lakshmi N. Kaimal, AOR Mr. M. J. Santhosh, Adv. Ms. Surabhi Santosh, Adv. Mr. Arun Poomulli, Adv. Mr. Anil Sharma, Adv.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. On the conviction in a criminal case for violation of integrity norms in performance of official duties and an appeal pending before the High Court, is the employee still entitled to the release of his Death-cum- Retirement Gratuity (for short ‘DCRG’) is the moot point arising for consideration in the present appeals. We are, in fact, examining a Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court which resolved the conflict of view of the Division Benches and ruled in favour of the employees. The controversy having been set down, the Government of Kerala, which is naturally aggrieved by the decision of the Full Bench is before us on the aforesaid issue.

Factual Background:

2. In the main appeal before us, the question of law is the same but the facts differ in the two cases of the two employees.

3. (A) K. Chandran, the respondent in the appeal was working as Village Extension Officer, Noolaphuza. In the course of his employment the Vigilance Department registered a crime under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(SC) 283

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, M. M. SUNDRESHTHE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT – AppellantVersusK. CHANDRAN – Respondent

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, M. M. SUNDRESH
THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT – Appellant
Versus
K. CHANDRAN – Respondent