IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 12946 of 2008(N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.T.MOHANDAS, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.A.C.RAGHAVAN NAIR, PUTHIYAKALATHIL HOUSE, AYAKKARAPPADI.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE TIRUR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.P.B.NO.55, HEAD OFFICE, TIRUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RR3 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.MOHANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.12946/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 12.5.2007 ISSUED BYTHE CHAIRMAN OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 6.9.2007 ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER ALONG WITH THE INDEMINITY BOND, LEAVE APPLICATION AND THE APPLICATION FOR PENSION DT. 6.11.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT BANK. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT. 1.4.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.12946 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008. JUDGMENT Learned Government Pleader appears for the first respondent. Learned standing counsel Sri.V.G.Arun appears for the second respondent. Learned standing counsel Sri.P.V.Mohanan appears for the third respondent. Party is represented by counsel. 2. Petitioner was an employee of the second respondent. He, going by the pleadings in the writ petition, was compulsorily retired from service as a consequence of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him on alleged misconduct. 3. Petitioner claimed pension on the ground that he is entitled to such relief in spite of compulsory retirement. That stands negatived by WPC12946/08 -:2:- the Assistant Registrar in terms of Ext.P4. This is under challenge. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that compulsory retirement and dismissal are two among the punishments in terms of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act and Rules and compulsory retirement, not being one of the modes of removal enumerated in Clause 18(2) of the Co-operative Employees Pension Scheme, does not amount to dismissal and hence the petitioner is entitled to pension under that Scheme. 5. Clause 18(2) of the Pension Scheme, as quoted by the petitioner in Ground A of the writ petition, is to the effect that an employee, who has been dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency shall not be eligible for pension. Petitioner has not been dismissed from service, but he has been removed from service. WPC12946/08 -:3:- The mode of removal is compulsory retirement. That removal by compulsory retirement was indisputably owing to a finding of misconduct in a disciplinary proceeding. However, having regard to the proviso of Clause 18(2), the authority imposing the penalty, namely, the second respondent, is competent to recommend the grant of pension. That is essentially within the domain of the second respondent to decide in accordance with law, having regard to the said proviso. In the aforesaid circumstances, while affirming Ext.P4, it is ordered directing that the second respondent will consider whether the petitioner's case is one fit for being recommended for pension in terms of Clause 18(2) of the Pension Scheme and such a decision shall be taken, untrammelled by anything stated in Ext.P4. Let that be done within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and a WPC12946/08 -:4:- representation from the petitioner invoking the benefit of such a proviso. No costs. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl/2/6/08