Allowed

P.K.Joy v. Kerala State Housing Board

Kerala HC19 Nov 2012WP(C)/61/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order withholding retirement benefits from a retired Assistant Engineer. The VACB inquiry report did not implicate the petitioner, yet a portion of his DCRG remained held. The Court directed the respondents to release the withheld amount within one month.

What did the court decide?

Order Ext.P5 set aside. Respondents directed to release Rs. 2,36,909/- to the petitioner within one month.

P.K.Joy Vs Kerala State Housing Board — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/28TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 61 of 2011 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

P.K.JOY (Retd. ASST.ENGINEER, KSHB) PAZHAYIDATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MULAKULAM NORTH.P.O. PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686664.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.B.MANIMOHAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SC KSHB, TVM R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE BOBAN, SC, K.S.H.B.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WPC NO.61/2011

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶17

P1 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.07.2010 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT IN WPC NO.19262/10

¶18

P2 COPY OF RECORDED ORAL STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER AT PERSONAL HEARING ON 11.08.2010

¶19

P3 COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DATED 19.05.2010 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶20

P4 COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 20.07.2010 OF the PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CONECTION WITH THE PERSONAL HEARING

¶21

P5 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.HBO 224/AdII(b)14758/07 DATED 30.08.2010 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITHHOLDING THE PETITIONER'S DCRG

¶22

P6 COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT DATED 18.01.2007 BY SHRI. N.M.CLEETUS, ASST. EXE.ENGINEER

¶23

P7 COPY OF the REPORT DATED 15.02.2007 OF THE EXE.ENGINEER, ERNAKULAM DIVISION

¶24

P8 COPY OF PAGE NO.5 OF THE CHECK SHEET (BOTH SIDES) P9 COPY OF THE PAGE NO.7 OF THE MORTGAGE DEED EXECUTED BY SHRI. M.O.BABU(MEH 25)

¶25

P10 COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.185/2002/Fin. DATED 27.02.2002 P11 COPY OF BOARD DECISION DATED 28.04.2009 P12 COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 29.10.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIOENR P13 COPY OF LETTER NO.AdII(b) 14758/09 DATED 06.01.2011 P14 COPY OF THE VACB REPORT VE16/08-EKM DATED 30.12.2010 P15 COPY OF ORDER NO.HBO333 Adl(a)10490/09 DATED 04.09.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT SECRETARY

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶27

NIL

¶28

// TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE

¶29

¶30

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 61 OF 2011

¶32

Dated this the 19^th day of November, 2012

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Non-disbursal of the retirement benefits payable to the petitioner in respect of the service rendered in the 1^st respondentBoard is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶35

The petitioner was working as an Assistant Engineer and on attaining the age of superannuation, he came out of the service on 31.12.2008. The retirement benefits payable to the petitioner came to be sanctioned as per proceedings dated 05.12.2009; but a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Thousand only) was withheld from the DCRG payable to him, on the ground that a Vigilance enquiry was going on, in respect of some loan transactions.

¶36

In view of the inordinate delay in disbursing the due amount to the petitioner, he had approached this Court by filing WPC No.19262/10. The said writ petition was disposed of, as per Ext.P1 judgment, directing the respondents to finalise the liability, if at all any, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to disburse the balance DCRG, within the time as specified therein. Pursuant to the above verdict, the petitioner

¶37

W.P.C. No. 61 OF 2011

¶38

:2:

¶39

was heard and the 2^nd respondent passed Ext.P5 order dated 30.08.2010, whereby the alleged loss caused to the Board was fixed as 11,84,543/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand Five Hundred Forty Three only) out of which, 20% was fixed as share payable by the petitioner, which comes to an amount of Rs.2,36,909/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Nine only). Out of the initially withheld amount of Rs.3,30,000/-, this amount was set apart and the balance of amount Rs.93,091/- (Rupees Ninety Three Thousand and Ninety One only) was ordered to be released to the petitioner as per Ext.P5 proceedings.

¶40

Being aggrieved of Ext.P5, the petitioner filed Ext.P12 representation and after considering the same, Ext.P13 reply was given to him (produced along with IA No.934/2011) which says that the said amount has been withheld only for the time being and that if the report of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau revealed that the petitioner had no role for the loss sustained to the Board in respect of loan sanctioned to one Mr. M.O.Babu (Loan No. MEH 25 of Perumbavoor branch), the withheld amount would be released to the petitioner.

¶41

W.P.C. No. 61 OF 2011

¶42

:3:

¶43

The petitioner has now filed IA No.14306/2012 producing a copy of the VACB report bearing No. VE 16/08-EKM dated 30.12.2010, which does not reflect any sign of insinuation against the petitioner. It is stated that the Vigilance has found that only two Suspect Officers are liable to be proceeded against, ie; S.O. No.7 and 8 and it is recommended that steps are to be taken first against the concerned borrowers, before proceeding with steps to recover the amount from the Suspect Officers. Meanwhile, the 8^th Suspect Officer retired from the service and the retirement benefits payable to the said officer have been sanctioned as per Ext.P15 order dated 04.09.2012; whereas, the petitioner who is stated as having no role at all, even by the VACB report is quite unnecessarily being harassed and penalised by withholding the DCRG, which hence is under challenge.

¶44

As mentioned above, Ext.P13 reply was sent to the petitioner in response to Ext.P12. The operative portion of this reads as follows:-

¶45

“The matter was examined in vivid detail and only 20% of the loss was attributed against you. The said amount of Rs.2,36,909/- has only been withheld for the time being. It is also informed that if the report of VACB, reveals that you have

¶46

W.P.C. No. 61 OF 2011

¶47

:4:

¶48

no role for the loss sustained to Board in respect of loan sanctioned to Sri.M.O.Babu, MEH 25 of Perumbavoor, the withheld amount will be released to you.”

¶49

The petitioner has produced a copy of the VACB report as Ext.P14. The specific case of the petitioner is that absolutely no reference is made with regard to the petitioner anywhere in the said report and among the 'nine' Suspect Officers, the alleged offence is made out only in respect of the Suspect Officer '7' and the Suspect Officer '8', the former being a serving official, while the latter - a retired official. Despite this, the pensionary benefits payable to this 8^th Suspect Officer has been sanctioned as per Ext.P15. Similarly, inspite of the specific undertaken given in Ext.P13 that the withheld amount would be released to the petitioner based on the enquiry report ie; if it is established in the report that there was no role for the petitioner in respect of the loss, no further step has been taken by the concerned respondent.

¶50

After going through the pleadings and proceedings, this Court finds considerable force in the submissions made from the part of the petitioner, as no connecting link is established to have booked the petitioner. There is no justification in

¶51

W.P.C. No. 61 OF 2011

¶52

:5:

¶53

withholding the amount pursuant to Ext.P5. In the said circumstance, Ext.P5 is set aside. The respondents are directed to release the sum of Rs.2,36,909/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Nine only) withheld from the petitioner, as per Ext.P5 at the earliest, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The question of granting 'interest' is left open, to be adjudicated by way of other appropriate proceedings, based on the pleadings to be let in and evidence to be adduced.

¶54

Writ petition is allowed. No cost.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶57

(JUDGE)

¶58

sd/

P.K.Joy v. Kerala State Housing Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Joy v. Kerala State Housing Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Kerala State Electricity Board Vs T.a.Surendran

Manager, Green Woods Public School, Ksd. Vs Cisce & Others

Binitha Kochumon K. Vs the D.E.O

B.Khadarkunju Vs Akber Ali.N.K.

V.K.Padmini Vs State of Kerala

Shameer.P.K. Vs the State of Kerala