IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 27911 of 2011(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- T.C.BALACHANDRAN, S/O.T.R.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, SUPERINTENDENT, (RETIRED FROM KOLLAM CORPORATION) RESIDING AT : THAIYYIL HOUSE, NELLIMUKKU, THIRUMULLAVARAM (PO) KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.REVATHY.P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, DIRECTORATE OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 2. THE KOLLAM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOLLAM CORPORATION OFFICE, KOLLAM – 691 001. R1 BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.E.M.ABDUL KHADER R2 BY ADV.SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AV WPC.NO.27911/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT P1 : COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.VI-16125/06 DATED 21.12.2010. EXHIBIT P2 : COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ON 02.02.2011. EXHIBIT P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.VI-16125/06 DATED 11.04.2011. EXHIBIT P4 : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.08.2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE AV P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 27911 of 2011 – L ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T The prayer of the petitioner is to set aside Ext.P3 order imposing punishment much after the retirement in service and to disburse the DCRG and other retiremental benefits , particularly in view of Ext.P4 recommendation sent by the employer stating that no loss has been caused to the concerned respondent. Since there cannot be any dispute with regard to the factual position by virtue of the sequence of events given in Ext.P3, it is a matter to be heard on the legal issue. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the first respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent as well. 3. The petitioner retired from service while working as Superintendent in the office of the 2nd respondent, on 30.6.2008. It is stated that the petitioner was paid commutted value of pension and P.F.balance, but DCRG has been withheld referring to the disciplinary proceedings initiated -2- W.P.(C) No.27911/2011-L against him. It is also seen that Ext.P1 show-cause notice itself was issued much after the retirement of the petitioner from service; to which he submitted Ext.P2 reply. It was after considering the same, that Ext.P3 order was passed on 11.4.2011, whereby it was held that, taking a lenient view, one increment of the petitioner was barred for a period of six months without cumulative effect. 4. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent that the matter was considered in detail and the second respondent has sent Ext.P4 recommendation to the first respondent, pointing out that the alleged delinquency on the part of the petitioner has not resulted in any loss to the Corporation and that no amount is liable to be paid by the petitioner to the Corporation. 5. It is to be noted that, after retirement of the petitioner from service on 30.6.2008, the employer- employee relationship between the petitioner and the employer has been cut off and as such, there is no master and servant relationship. This being the position, no punishment could have been imposed upon the petitioner, -3- W.P.(C) No.27911/2011-L referring to the alleged misconduct committed while in service; though the respondents are at liberty to have the loss caused, if any, quantified and demanded, to the permissible extent. It may be open to proceed with steps under Rule 3 part III KSR in appropriate cases. This Court finds that Ext.P3 order imposing the punishment after retirement is not correct and the same is set aside. Since the second respondent has certified as per Ext.P4, that no loss has been caused to the said respondent, there is no rhyme or reason in retaining the DCRG payable to the petitioner any further. In such circumstances, there will be a direction to the first respondent to take further steps to disburse the DCRG immediately. The proceedings shall be finalised as early as possible at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. No costs. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. rka -4- W.P.(C) No.27911/2011-L