Kerala High Court
Joseph Manuel vs The State Of Kerala on 4 March, 2010
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17250 of 2008(C)
1. JOSEPH MANUEL, GENERAL MANAGER (HRD)
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION
For Petitioner :SRI.ANIL K.NARENDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.K.VIJAYA MOHANAN, SC, MATSYAFED
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :04/03/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.17250 of 2008 (C)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 4th day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was the General Manager of the 2nd respondent.
2. In relation to certain allegations concerning import of Out Board Motors, a vigilance enquiry was ordered against the Managing Director and other Officers, including the petitioner, and thereupon he was placed under suspension. In the meanwhile, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. Subsequently, Government issued Ext.P6 informing the 2nd respondent that the Vigilance Department have informed that there is no documentary or oral evidence in support of the allegations against the Officers and that therefore, no action is recommended against the suspected Officers and requested to drop further action in the matter, and that further action in the matter was dropped.
3. The petitioner thereupon represented that the period he was kept out of service should be regularized and monetary benefits should be allowed. Pursuant to the judgment in WP(C) No.18469/2007 filed by the petitioner, the representation was considered by the Government, and Ext.P10 order was issued WP(C) No.17250/2008 -2- directing to regularize the period of suspension of the petitioner as eligible leave and settle his pensionary claims. On that basis, the Managing Director of the 2nd respondent was directed to take further action to settle the pensionary benefits of the petitioner observing the Rules in that behalf. In this writ petition, the petitioner submits that since he has been exonerated from all charges, he is entitled to have the period he was kept out of service treated as duty and paid all monetary benefits.
4. However, in paragraphs 7 & 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the Government, it has been stated thus:- (paras 7 & 8) "7. ---------------. The Chairman of the Matsyafed is of the opinion that the earlier enquiry conducted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau exonerating the petitioner did not address the charges leveled by him in his complaint dated 06/03/2002. The Vigilance Department has since informed that a second enquiry has been ordered by the Vigilance Department on the request of the Chairman of the Matsyafed and the enquiry is pending.
8. ---------------. Since Government had directed to conduct a re-enquiry in the matters related to import of Outboard Motors by the Vigilance Department, it has become not possible to honour the Ext.P10 Government Order dated 25/03/2008. The question of payment of full pay and allowances for the period of suspension and treating the said period spent on duty can be considered only after the enquiry."
In view of the above, according to the Government, the claim of the WP(C) No.17250/2008 -3- petitioner can be considered only after the conclusion of the Vigilance Enquiry that is now going on.
5. So long as the Vigilance Enquiry is pending, irrespective of the correctness of the reasons mentioned in Ext.P6, this Court will not be justified in granting relief as sought for by the petitioner. Therefore, at this stage, the only relief that can be ordered is that the Vigilance Enquiry now ordered shall be concluded on an expeditious basis, and depending upon its outcome, the claim of the petitioner shall be considered by the 1st respondent.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing that the Vigilance Enquiry, that is now going on against the petitioner and others as mentioned in paragraphs 7 & 8 of the counter affidavit, shall be expedited and concluded, at any rate, within six months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also directed that depending upon the outcome of the Vigilance Enquiry, the claim of the petitioner, which was dealt with by the Government in Ext.P10 order, shall be reconsidered and fresh orders thereon shall be passed.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg