IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 22180 of 2007(M) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- KRISHNAKUMARI PILLAI.G., HEADMISTRESS (RETIRED),H.S.S.MUTHUKULAM, MUTHUKULAM SOUTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA, NOW RESIDING AT RAJEEVAM, MUTHUKULAM SOUTH P.O, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SMT.S.KARTHIKA, MR.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SMT.K.P.GEETHAMANI, MR.M.R.ANISON, MR.T.R.RAJESH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE MANAGER, H.S.S MUTHUKULAM, MUTHUKULAM SOUTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. V. MANU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.22180/2007-M: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 28/01/2005 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DTD. 09/02/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 03/01/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 21/02/2007 IN W.P.(C).NO.5757/2007. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 02/04/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)2144/07/G. EDN. DTD. 18/05/2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.22180 OF 2007 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 19 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner retired as the Headmistress of H.S.S, Muthukulam, an aided school on 31.3.2007. Her grievance is against Ext.P6 order passed by the Government, ordering initiation of disciplinary action against her. The facts of the case are as follows. 2. In the Staff Fixation Order for the Academic year 2004-2005, 28 divisions were sanctioned in the school. Subsequently, there were various visits by the super check cell and the student strength was verified repeatedly. During the course of the verification, Ext.P1 order was passed by the DPI directing the petitioner to produce Attendance Register and Admission Register. In response to this, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2, producing a statement showing the details regarding admission of students, but however expressing her inability to produce the Attendance Register on the ground that the same was needed in the School on a daily basis. 3. DPI thereafter initiated further proceedings after hearing the Wpc 22180/2007 2 petitioner and on another verification by the Super Check Cell, DPI passed Ext.P3 order abolishing three divisions and five posts. Against this order, the Manager filed a revision before the Government, along with an application for stay of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3. Thereafter, the petitioner and the Manager filed a writ petition before this court resulting in Ext.P4 judgment, where the Government was directed to consider the stay petition filed by the Manager, along with the revision. It was also directed that the DEO shall refix the staff strength applying the ratio, 1:40. Accordingly, DEO issued Ext.P5, as a result of which, the salary paid in respect of HSA Malayalam alone became repayable as ordered in Ext.P3. 4. In the meanwhile, in pursuance to the directions in Ext.P4 judgment, the stay petition filed by the Manager was considered by the government and Ext.P6 order was passed. In this order, Government directed that disciplinary action be initiated against the petitioner for her failure to produce the Attendance Register, in pursuance to Ext.P1 of the DPI referred to above. 5. It is, aggrieved by Ext.P6 that to the extent it ordered disciplinary action against the petitioner, that this writ petition is filed. Wpc 22180/2007 3 The other complaint that the petitioner has, is that on account of the proceedings that are ordered to be initiated, although she has retired as early as on 31.3.2007, her terminal benefits are not disbursed. 6. As far as the disciplinary action ordered to be initiated is concerned, Ext.P6 order is dated 18.5.2007. The petitioner having retired from service on 31.3.2007, there is cessation of master-servant relationship between the Government and the petitioner. Only during the currency of such a relationship, can disciplinary action be initiated unless otherwise provided in the rules against the conditions of service of the person concerned. In this case, there is no such enabling provision to initiate disciplinary action, once the petitioner has retired and if so, Ext.P6 ordering disciplinary action is illegal and cannot be sustained. 7. However, if according to the Government, there is a case for initiating proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 3 Part III, KSR, it is always open to the Government to initiate such action. But that does not mean that disciplinary action against the petitioner could be initiated after retirement. Therefore, Ext.P6, to the extent disciplinary action is ordered against the petitioner, has to be set aside and I do so. Wpc 22180/2007 4 8. Learned Government Pleader invited my attention to the Division Bench decision of this court in Pappachan V State of Kerala (2008(4) KLT 676) and contended that in a situation as in this case, this court should not invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and order release of the terminal benefits of the petitioner. However, on facts, I notice that the Division Bench was concerned with a case that liability of the petitioner therein was quantified and steps were already initiated for its recovery and it was therefore that the Division Bench declined to order release of pensionary benefits. The facts of the case being incomparable, I am not persuaded to apply the ratio of the said decision to decline relief to the petitioner herein. Therefore there will be a direction to the respondents to release the terminal benefits due to the petitioner without any further delay. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE lgk