Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ALEXANDER THOMAS, VIJU ABRAHAM, JJ.
State of Kerala – Petitioner
Versus
Suresh Prabhu P. S/o Purushothama Rao – Respondent
O.P. (KAT) No. 271 of 2021
Decided On : 22-12-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226, 227 and 309 - Kerala Civil Services (Vigilance Tribunal) Rules, 1960 - Rule 3A of Part-III and 8(15) - Post of Panchayat Secretary - Grant of commuted value of pension - Departmental proceedings - Retired from service - Pensionary benefits - Whether there is a prima-facie case against officer and if Government are satisfied that there is a prima-facie case against any officer, then Government shall frame definite charge or charges which shall be communicated to officer together with a statement of allegations on which each charge is based and of any other circumstances on which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing of orders on case etc. - Applicant while holding the post of Panchayat Secretary had retired from service - While he was holding the post of Head Clerk in Grama Panchayat, a vigilance enquiry was instituted against him by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, which was registered as Vigilance Enquiry, pertaining to allegations of irregularities in the implementation of Tsunami Special SGRY Programme.
Finding of the Court:
Memo of charges has been framed by Government against the applicant as early as on 28.10.2013, which is well before retirement of applicant. Proceedings before Vigilance Tribunal has also been duly completed and final report has been submitted which is after retirement of applicant - True that withholding of DCRG is legally wrong. But withholding of pension and payment of only provisional pension, pending finalization of proceedings in terms of Rule 3 Part-III KSR, cannot be said to be illegal or ultra-vires. Hence, we are not in a position to accept contention of applicant that a direction should now be issued, so that entire full pensionary benefits, including commuted value of pension, should also be disbursed to him apart from the full amount of DCRG - it is made clear that in case the order that may be passed by the Government on recommendation of Vigilance Tribunal is in any manner adverse to the applicant, then he will be at liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedies against same, in the manner known to law - Hence, there cannot be any doubt that departmental proceedings within meaning of operative portion of Rule 3 Part-III KSR, has been pending against applicant even after his retirement from service in relation to above memo of charge - In case applicant has any legally justiciable grievances in relation to final order to be passed by Government in above said proceedings under Rule 3 Part-III KSR, then applicant will be at liberty to work out his remedies against same, in manner known to law.
Result: Original Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
1. The sole respondent herein has filed the instant Ext.P-1 Original Application, O.A. No. 544/2020 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench with the following prayers:
(2) Any other order or direction as this Honourable Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The Tribunal after hearing both sides has rendered the impugned Ext.P-2 final order dated 30.10.2020 finally disposing of the instant O.A. No. 544/2020 with the finding that there is no legal justification on the part of the respondents in the O.A. in withholding the pensionary benefits like DCRG, commuted value of pension, etc. in the light of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Chandran vs. Local Self Government Department, 2020 (5) KLT 669 (FB) and that the 1st respondent in the O.A. (State Government) in the Local Self Government Department, will consider Annexure-A3 representation dated 29.02.2020 filed by the applicant in the matter of his claim for release of full amount of DCRG, commuted value of pension, etc. and pass orders thereon, within two months, in the light of the abovesaid findings made by the Tribunal and to release the due pensionary benefits of the applicant, without any further delay, etc. It is this final verdict of the Tribunal at Ext.P-2 rendered in the above O.A. on 30.10.2020 that is under challenge in the instant Original Petition filed at the behest of the State of Kerala and the Panchayat Department under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The prayers of the instant original petition filed on 30.09.2021 are as follows:
(2) Any other order or direction as this Honourable Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. Heard Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners in the OP/respondents in the O.A. and Sri. Rajesh Pullikada, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent in the O.P/sole applicant in the O.A.
4. A brief reference to the factual aspects in this case would be necessary. The applicant while holding the post of Panchayat Secretary had retired from service on 30.06.2018. While he was holding the post of Head Clerk in the Arattupuzha Grama Panchayat, a vigilance enquiry was instituted against him by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Alappuzha, which was registered as Vigilance Enquiry, VE/02/2009/ALP, pertaining to allegations of irregularities in the implementation of the Tsunami Special SGRY Programme for 2005-2006 in Arattupuzha Grama Panchayat, Alappuzha Revenue District. Further that, from the averments in Para-6(ii) of the O.A. it is seen that an enquiry was ordered as per the directives of the State Government in the Vigilance Department as per G.O. (Rt.) No. 133/2016/Vig. dated 19.05.2016 and that the matter was referred to the Vigilance Tribunal, constituted in terms of the Kerala Civil Services (Vigilance Tribunal) Rules, 1960 framed under the enabling provisions contained in the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is averred that the said enquiry proceedings by the Vigilance Tribunal was concluded in the last sitting of the Vigilance Tribunal held in April, 2019 and that the enquiry report has been duly furnished by the Vigilance Tribunal to the competent authority of the State Government in the Vigilance Department and that thereafter no further action has been taken thereof. That, citing the pendency of the said enquiry proceedings, the applicant was sanctioned only provisional pension and his full DCRG amount has been withheld, by taking recourse to the provisions contained in Rule 3A of Part-III KSR. The c
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
