Judgment :- 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. 4. Counsel adverts to the Government order dated 27.3.2002, which imposes a duty on the Government to expedite enquiry as against retired officers. Even if, it is a case of vigilance enquiry, a preliminary report is to be obtained. When the report reveals that the enquiry is likely to be a long drawn out process, pensionary benefits are to be settled and if, in case, it become essential, recovery of loss is to be carried out through revenue recovery or civil proceedings after concluding such steps. The outer time limit thought of is one year. 5. Petitioner submits that, in the present case, it is more than five years and there is no allegation about a loss to Government and in all outward appearances, his case stands forgotten. 6. The contentions as raised above basing on the Government Orders, appear to be valid. Perhaps the officers who were instrumental in issuing the earlier orders are not there. New persons would be reluctant to lay their hands on files on which dust might have been settled. 6. The contentions as raised above basing on the Government Orders, appear to be valid. Perhaps the officers who were instrumental in issuing the earlier orders are not there. New persons would be reluctant to lay their hands on files on which dust might have been settled. But the Government has a duty towards its offices, serving or retired and essential continuity is to be preserved. 7. It is evident that Exhibit P3 Government Order was issued, taking notice of the observations made by this Court, about the requirement of expeditious disposal of disciplinary proceedings. A disciplinary action delayed would have functioned as a double edged sword. The lethargy in initiating action affects not only the individual concerned, but goes against pubic interest. Such proceedings are to be finalized in a time bound manner and instances are far too many for the Government having suffered unnecessary monetary less. Such losses are theoretically directed to be recovered from recalcitrant officers, but most often they end in vicious circles from which it is difficult to get extricated. 8. It is not as if guidance is not available. As early as on 12.5.1992, by G.O.(P) No.65/92/Vig., set up and working of Vigilance Department had been finalized. The object of the Department was to effectively combat corruption and misconduct on the part of the Government servants. As the petitioners belonged to the Legislative Secretariat, without special request, the Department could not have intervened. 9. It would have been possible for the authorities concerned to seek their aid. Government envisaged that the follow up proceedings of an investigation was expedited. A time limit of three months was prescribed as an outer limit for filing of an enquiry report. On such report, Government was to finalize the next course of action. It would also have been possible to register cases, if the circumstances required such action. In the later order (G.O.(P) No.18/97/Vig. Dated 5.4.1997), the time limit for enquiry/investigation had been laid down. The suggested limits were the following: “The time limit for enquiry/investigation will be fixed as follows: 10. But, the present position is far away from the idealistic approach which had been suggested. Time and again, it had been advised that the progress in respect of pending cases were to be the subject matter of discussion in the Departmental Conferences, by including the same in the agenda. 11. But, the present position is far away from the idealistic approach which had been suggested. Time and again, it had been advised that the progress in respect of pending cases were to be the subject matter of discussion in the Departmental Conferences, by including the same in the agenda. 11. The order dated 27.3.2002, on the other hand, stresses on the consequences where there is failure to abide by the guidelines. Pension Sanctioning Authorities were to finalize departmental action within a period of one year of the retirement date of the offices concerned, positively. Provisional pension was payable and commutation benefits could be sanctioned after withholding the DCRG alone. Although by later orders, certain restrictions are stated to be reintroduced, it is now essential that in case of non-quantification of liability due to administrative reasons and reasons other than departmental or judicial action, all pensionary benefits are to be settled within sixty days of retirement, after withholding DCRG for a period of due year, after getting an undertaking that recoveries if necessary could be effected from pension payments. 12. Likewise, the requirement for issuing Last Pay Certificate (LPC) from time to time to an officer is suggested, in respect of officers, who deal with cash, stores, stock and other valuables. A quick test audit is suggested. Further, only in case where mala fide conduct is doubted, withholding of benefits are to be resorted to. 13. I have adverted to these details so as to highlight the shirt in the stand of the Administration. The Government advisedly and correctly wish to ensure that early settlement of pensionary claims are made and disciplinary and departmental proceedings are finalized at the earliest. The lethargy of concerned offices, thereby has become actionable. In spite of all these, if the responsible persons fail to tow in with the line they could be appropriately branded. 14. I direct that if the contemplated proceedings, as against the petitioner, are not finalized within a period of three months from today, it should be deemed that the petitioner had retired from service honourably. Consequence is that petitioner will have a right to claim all the pensionary are retirement benefits that might be payable to him. Such benefits are to be disbursed within a period of two months of the filing of a formal request, thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. Consequence is that petitioner will have a right to claim all the pensionary are retirement benefits that might be payable to him. Such benefits are to be disbursed within a period of two months of the filing of a formal request, thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. I am aware that it is not for want of instructions that the present scenario has crept in. The number of cases that are filed for similar reliefs are astounding. Instructions hardly reach the law officers for them to assist the court and the numbers accumulate in the courts as well. But, with a little responsible response, the entanglements could be removed. The registry shall forward a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram for information and appropriate follow up action, as may be advised.