IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2011 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14222 of 2011(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. V.JAGADEESAN ACHARY RETD. EXCISE PREVENTIVE OFFICER ARAVINDAM, SOOLAMKUDY, POOVAR PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. K.SASIDHARAN, RETD. EXCISE PREVENTIVE OFFICER BINDHU BHAVAN, ELAMPAL PO, PUNALUR. 3. A.PAILY, RETD EXCISE PREVENTIVE OFFICER PRINCE BHAVAN, MYLAM PO, KOTTARAKKARA. 4. L.KURIKESU RETD EXCISE PREVENTIVE OFFICER, NEDIYAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PULAMON PO KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TAXES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER KOLLAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 14222 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 10th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are retired employees of the Excise Department of the Government of Kerala. They are aggrieved by Exts.P7 to P10 memos of charges issued to them after their retirement. According to them, after their retirement, no disciplinary proceedings can be initiated especially in respect of an incident which happened more than 13 years, in 1998. The petitioners, therefore, seek the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Exts.P7, P8, P9 and P10 and quashing the same. ii) declare that no disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against the petitioners by the respondents after their retirement.” 2. I am of opinion that these are all mattes which the petitioners can raise in their replies to the memos of charges and before proceeding further, the respondents are bound to consider the same in accordance with law. On 26.5.2011, I had directed the petitioners to file their replies to the memos of charges. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The 3rd respondent shall consider the replies of the petitioners to the memos of charges with particular reference to their contention that w.p.c.14222/11 2 the memos of charges are not maintainable under Part III of KSR after retirement of the petitioners especially since the allegations in the memos of charges relate to an incident which happened in 1998, 13 yeas before their retirement. Further proceedings shall be taken only after the 3rd respondent enters a specific finding as to the maintainability of the disciplinary proceedings on the above ground. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge