V DIVAKARAN NAIR Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER had been placed under suspension from 20. 7. 2000. Shortly thereafter, on 31. 7. 2000, he had been permitted to retire from service. No further steps, thereafter has come forth. The resultant position is that all his retrial benefits are kept locked in. The writ petition is filed seeking to expedite further action or for directing payment of his dues.

(2.) THE allegation against petitioner of course, is found to be serious. He was working as a Roneo Operator in the Legislature Secretariat. It is alleged that he had misguided a lady to believe that it may be possible for him to smuggle in her children for jobs in the establishment. Believing him, she had paid substantial sums as ratification. Later on, finding that she had been tricked, she had lodged complaints with authorities. Before ten days of his date of superannuation the petitioner, thereupon was suspended pending further proceedings.

(3.) PERHAPS, legally action would have been sustainable against him. He could have been prosecuted. But the difficulty is that nothing had happened thereafter. The edge of allegations get rusted by passage of time and though notice had been issued to respondents, further details are not forthcoming. The Government should have supplied essential details to the Advocate General, at least for him to arrange a semblance of a defence.