IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21962 of 2007(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- S.ABOOBACKER, VI/1186 H, OPPOSITE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, STAR ROAD, KOCHI-2. BY ADV. MR.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR SMT.ANEY PAUL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ THE GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, P.B.NO.2012, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682 030, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. MR.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 21962/2007-M APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGE DATED 23/10/2002 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF DEFENCE OF THE RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER, DATED 27/01/2003. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13/06/2003 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 26/06/2003. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30/06/2003 IN WP(C) NO. 18064/2003 OF THE HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO.153/1983 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM, DATED 25/05/2007. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/06/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 31/03/2004. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 21962 of 2007 M =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.A.A.Mohammed Nazir, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Premachandra Prabhu, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner entered service as Assistant Grade-II in the Greater Cochin Development Authority, hereinafter referred to as the “Authority” for short, on 26-6-1976. He was later promoted to the category of Assistant Grade-I. While he was working as Assistant Grade-I, he was placed under suspension with effect from 24-2-1982 in connection with the purchase of cement from the Tamil Nadu Cement Corporation Ltd. A criminal case was also registered in relation to the said transaction and the petitioner along with seven others was prosecuted in C.C.No.153 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam for the offences punishable under sections 120B, 408, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and section 3 of the Kerala W.P.(C) No. 21962/07 2 Cement Distribution and Licensing Regulation, 1975. While the criminal case was pending, the Secretary of the Authority issued Ext.P1 memo of charges dated 23-10-2002 and called upon the petitioner to submit his written statement of defence to the memo of charges. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 reply dated 27-1-2003 wherein he, inter alia, stated that as the criminal case in respect of the very same set of charges is pending, the disciplinary proceedings may be kept in abeyance. It appears that notwithstanding the pendency of the criminal case, the Secretary heard the petitioner on 20-2-2003 and, without conducting an enquiry, issued Ext.P3 notice dated 13-6-2003 informing the petitioner that the Executive Committee of the Authority that met on 31-5-2003 has resolved to dismiss him from service with effect from the date on which he was placed under suspension, after giving him 30 days notice in terms of the Rules. The petitioner was called upon to submit his representation if any, against the imposition of the said punishment. The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P4 reply dated 26-6-2003 wherein he questioned the validity of the decision taken by the Executive Committee of the Authority. He contended that as the punishment proposed is a major penalty, it can be imposed only after a formal enquiry under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, which governs the employees of the Authority, is held. W.P.(C) No. 21962/07 3 3. The petitioner had, in the meanwhile, filed W.P.(C) No.18064 of 2003 in this Court seeking reinstatement in service. By Ext.P5 judgment delivered on 30-6-2003 a learned Single Judge of this Court held that there was no justification to continue the petitioner under suspension. This Court accordingly directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service without prejudice to the right of the Authority to pursue the disciplinary action against him. The petitioner was accordingly reinstated in service on 17-7-2003 and he retired from service on 30-8-2003 on attaining the age of superannuation. Years later, the criminal case registered against the petitioner ended in his acquittal. By Ext.P6 judgment delivered on 25-5-2007 the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam acquitted the petitioner and others of all the charges. Ext.P6 judgment has become final. After Ext.P6 judgment was delivered acquitting the petitioner, he submitted Ext.P7 representation dated 27-6- 2007 requesting for payment of service benefits and also payment of retirement benefits. He contended that for no fault of his, he was kept out of service for about 25 years denying him salary and allowances. This writ petition was thereafter filed seeking the following reliefs:- “i) to issue a writ of certiorari and quash Ext.P1 and the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioner. ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to grant all service benefits including promotions and W.P.(C) No. 21962/07 4 all monetary benefits including all retirement benefits due to the petitioner treating him as on duty during the period of suspension. iii) to issue a further writ of mandamus directing the respondent to grant all increments and pay revision benefits due to the petitioner, the benefits on the basis of the earned leave to the credit of the petitioner and the salary for the last month prior to retirement.” 4. The petitioner contends that though after Ext.P4 written statement was submitted, an Enquiry Officer (Chief Planner of G.C.D.A.) was appointed on 3-7-2003, the enquiry was adjourned sine die on 13- 1-2004, on which date it stood posted for defence evidence. The petitioner also contends that he has not been informed of any step taken thereafter and that after retirement, the employer cannot continue the disciplinary action and impose any punishment. The petitioner further contends that as no proceedings have been initiated against him and concluded fixing any amount as his liability, the Authority is bound to disburse to him the terminal benefits and also the salary and allowances, which were denied to him ever since 24 -2-1982. 5. The Authority has filed a counter affidavit contending that by Ext.R1 enquiry report the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct and that they propose to initiate proceedings against him to recover the loss caused to the Authority. It is contended that as the criminal case registered against the petitioner was pending till 25-5-2007, the W.P.(C) No. 21962/07 5 disciplinary proceedings could not be finalized and that steps could not also be taken to realize the loss caused by the petitioner to the Authority. 6. It is now well settled by a series of decisions of this Court, including the decision in Jayarajan V. State of Kerala (2001(3) KLT 929) that disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee in service cannot be continued after his retirement for the purpose of imposition of penalty and that the Government can, after retirement of the Government servant, only recover the pecuniary loss, if any, caused to the Government. It has been held that the disciplinary enquiry initiated against the Government servant while he was in service, gets transmuted into one for recovery of the pecuniary loss, if any caused to the Government and that the disciplinary proceedings can be continued after retirement only for the said purpose. 7. In the instant case, though the petitioner retired from service on 30.08.2003, till date, the Authority has not taken steps to have the pecuniary loss quantified or determined with notice to the petitioner. In view of stipulation in Rule 3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules, which governs the employees of the Authority also, the Authority cannot, in my opinion, at this distance of time, initiate proceedings under Rule 3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules to recover from the petitioner's terminal benefits the pecuniary loss, if any, caused to it. Further as the petitioner W.P.(C) No. 21962/07 6 has already retired from service, no punishment can also be imposed on him. I therefore hold that the petitioner is entitled to payment of pensionary benefits. 8. The pleadings disclose that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 24.2.1982. He was reinstated in service pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment of this Court only on 17.07.2003. Thereafter he retired from service on 30-8-2003. The petitioner was placed under suspension in connection with a transaction which led to the registration of a criminal case, which ended in his acquittal by Ext.P6 judgment delivered on 25- 5-2007. Since the petitioner has been acquitted of the criminal charge and as the disciplinary action initiated against him was not finalized while the petitioner was in service, the Authority will necessarily have to issue orders regularizing the period of suspension from 24.02.1982 to 17.07.2003. Though nearly six years have passed after the petitioner retired from service, till date, orders in that regard have not been issued. As a result of the suspension, for more than two decades the petitioner was denied salary and allowances and also promotion to higher posts. These are all matters, which will have to be considered at least in the first instance by the Authority, The Authority has not, till date, taken any decision in that regard. Therefore, it will be premature for this Court at this stage to issue orders regarding the manner in which the period W.P.(C) No. 21962/07 7 during which the petitioner kept out of service has to be regularized and also his entitlement for monetary and other service benefits. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:- 1) The Authority shall, within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, pass orders regularizing the period from 24.02.1982 to 17.07.2003, namely, the period during which the petitioner was kept under suspension, after notice to and affording him an opportunity to state his case. 2) The Authority shall also consider whether in view of the findings in Ext.P6 judgment, the petitioner is entitled to be promoted to higher posts with effect from the dates on which his juniors were promoted. 3) The entitlement of the petitioner for salary and allowances shall also be decided upon by the Authority simultaneously and the benefits, if any, shall be disbursed expeditiously. 4) The Authority shall, after final orders are passed as directed above, take steps to fix the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner. This shall be done within one month from the date on which orders are passed as directed above. Payment of terminal benefits shall be made expeditiously thereafter. 5) It will be open to the petitioner to raise all his claims before the Executive Committee of the Authority in the form a representation which he may submit along with a certified copy of this judgment. 6) If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision taken by the Authority, it will be open to him to challenge the same in other appropriate proceedings. 7) I make it clear that nothing said in this judgment will W.P.(C) No. 21962/07 8 preclude the Authority from taking such steps as are permissible in law to recover the pecuniary loss if any, caused to it by the petitioner. The contentions of both parties as regards that aspect of the matter are kept open. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. mn.