RAGHAVAN V N Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an Assistant Engineer, who has retired from the Electrical Section, Wandoor, on attaining superannuation. Shortly before his retirement, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on allegations of corruption and he was alleged to have accepted bribe. According to the petitioner, he was trapped in a raise corruption case by some of his opponents. The Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Malappuram had registered a case V.C. No. 1/2000 against the petitioner alleging that he had accepted illegal gratification of an amount of Rs. 500/- from the son of an applicant who sought a fresh electric connection. In the criminal case, the petitioner was found guilty and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each. The petitioner has filed Crl.Appeal No. 812/2007 before this court challenging the conviction and sentence against him. The Criminal Appeal is still pending. While so, after 8 years of his retirement, the third respondent issued an order dated 7/3/2008 purporting to remove the petitioner from service with effect from 14/2/2000, the date on which he was arrested by the Vigilance. The petitioner challenged the said order before this court by filing W.P.(C) No. 13810/2008. The said writ petition was allowed by this court as per Ext. P1 judgment and the order dismissing the petitioner was quashed. However, in Ext. P1 this court has observed that the entitlement of the petitioner to claim pensionery benefits as per the Rules will depend on the outcome of Crl. Appeal No. 812/2007 filed by him. In view of the above observation, the pensionery benefits due to the petitioner are not paid. Though the petitioner had sought a review of Ext. Pl judgment by filing R.P. No. 663/2010, the review petition was dismissed as per Ext. P2.

(2.) In the above circumstances, the petitioner submitted Ext. P3 requesting that he may be granted compassionate allowance under Rule 5, Part III of Kerala Service Rules ('KSR' for short). By Ext. P4, the 3rd respondent directed the petitioner to produce two additional documents for the purpose of considering his request. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted all the necessary documents. However, by Ext. P5, the request of the petitioner for compassionate allowance has been rejected for the reason that this court has observed in Ext. P1 Judgment that the petitioner's entitlement for pensionery benefits would depend on the outcome of the Criminal Appeal filed by him. The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging Ext. P5.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent. It is the case of the third respondent that the petitioner had been charge sheeted in a case involving acceptance of bribe. The Vigilance Court has found the petitioner guilty and has convicted and sentenced him. The petitioner has challenged the conviction and sentence against him before this court in Criminal Appeal No. 812/2007, which is still pending. Consequent to his conviction, the petitioner's monthly pension was stopped. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is also not eligible for compassionate allowance, since he does not deserve any special consideration as provided by Rule 5, Part III K.S.R.