IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20850 of 2009(A) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- N.K.ALIAS, S/O.THOMMAN MARKOSE, AGED 56 YEARS, STORE KEEPER (RETIRED), DISTRICT TEXT BOOK DEPOT, CHAVAKKADU, THRISSUR DISTRICT, RESIDING AT VELLARAMKUNNEL HOUSE, KOOTHATTUKULAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 662 BY ADVS.MR. T.RAMPRASAD UNNI MR.J.R.PREM NAVAZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THRISSUR. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.20850 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated 24th July, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner was a Store Keeper in the District Text Book Depot at Chavakkad. He was placed under suspension by Ext.P3 order dated 4.1.2008 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Thrissur. He thereafter retired from service on 30.11.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner challenged the order of suspension in W.P.(C)No.29131 of 2008. By Ext.P5 judgment delivered on 3.10.2008, this Court disposed of the said writ petition reserving liberty with the petitioner to move the Director of Public Instruction or the Government seeking review of the order of suspension. The petitioner did not however move the Director of Public Instruction or the Government. After the expiry of six months from the date on which the petitioner was placed under suspension, the Director of Public Instruction issued Ext.P6 order dated 20.9.2008 continuing the suspension beyond six months. Thereafter a memo of charges dated 22.9.2008 was issued to the petitioner in WP(C).No.20850/2009 2 the address furnished by him. It was returned unserved. Later, after the petitioner retired from service, a copy thereof was served on him. The petitioner challenges the memo of charges dated 22.9.2008 on the ground that it was served on him after his retirement namely after 30.11.2008 and therefore, as there is no relationship of master and servant, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated or continued. The petitioner contends relying on the stipulations in Rule 3(b)(i) of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules that as sanction of the Government was not obtained, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings is bad. 2. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that he was placed under suspension by Ext.P3 order dated 4.1.2008. As per the explanation to Rule 3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules, a departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the employee or pensioner or if the employee has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date. In the instant case, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 4.1.2008. WP(C).No.20850/2009 3 Therefore, by operation of the explanation to Rule 3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules, the departmental proceedings against him has to be deemed to have been instituted on that date namely 4.1.2008. I therefore find no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner that the departmental proceedings were not instituted before his retirement from service and therefore the sanction of the Government is necessary. I therefore hold that there is no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. It is clarified that dismissal of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner from defending the allegations levelled against him by raising all available contentions, except the contention that the departmental proceedings were not initiated while he was in service. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS