Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.K. THANKAN versus THE STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.K. THANKAN v. THE STATE OF KERALA - OP No. 614 of 2003(W) [2006] RD-KL 1335 (19 October 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 614 of 2003(W)

1. P.K.THANKAN, RETIRED TALUK SUPPLY
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,

For Petitioner :SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

Dated :19/10/2006

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

O.P.No.614 OF 2003

Dated this the 19th day of October, 2006



J U D G M E N T

This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- I) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to disburse the pension and pensionary benefits including the DCRG forthwith to the petitioner. II) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Ext.P5 and P6 as arbitrary, illegal and inoperative or in the alternate. III) Declare that Ext.P5 and P6 cannot be enforced or implemented against the petitioner as it is opposed to the statutory mandate enjoined under Rule 3 part III of the KSR. Petitioner retired from service on 31.8.1997. The impugned Ext.P5 orders are passed on 21.8.2001. The order has two parts. i) withholding of pension to the tune of Rs. 100/- permanently from his monthly pension. ii) recovery of certain amounts towards loss caused to the Government. It is now settled law that any recovery from the DCRG is permissible only if the liability is computed within three years of O.P.No.614/2003 retirement. The retirement is on 31.8.1997 and the computation is only in 2001. Therefore, there cannot be any recovery of the loss as computed in Ext.P5 from the DCRG. If so advised, it is for the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law other than the recovery from the DCRG. As far the withholding of pension is concerned, it is seen that the Government has referred to the conduct of the petitioner based on the detailed enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Tribunal and after complying with the necessary formalities only, it was ordered to withhold Rs. 100/- permanently from his monthly pension. The procedural formalities having been thus complies with, it cannot be said that there is violation of principles of natural justice. All relevant factors have bee taken into consideration for imposing a punishment. It is also to be noted that the proceedings had been initiated prior to the retirement which were only continued after retirement, as contemplated under Rule 3 Part III KSR. Therefore, impugned Exts.P5 and P6 orders are quashed to the extent of fixation of liability so as to recover from the DCRG of the petitioner, sustaining the O.P.No.614/2003 withholding of pension. The amount withheld from the DCRG shall be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)

ps O.P.No.614/2003

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

O.P.No.614/2003

JUDGMENT

19th October, 2006


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.