IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WA.No. 2168 of 2008() -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.14621/2008 Dated 06/08/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WP ---------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION REP.BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, MAVELI BHAVAN GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-20 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS IN WP -------------------------------- 1. P.C. SAINABA, W/O. LATE M.SOOPY, AKKIRIPARAMBATH HOUSE, PARAPPANPOYIL P.O. RAROTH AMSOM, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE. 2. P.C. ASLAM, AKKIRIPARAMBATH HOUSE, PARAPPANPOYIL P.O., RAROTH AMSOM, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE. 3. P.C.NAHAS, AKKIRIPARAMBATH HOUSE, PARAPPANPOYIL P.O. RAROTH AMSOM, THANARASSERY, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. Koshy & Thomas P.Joseph, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A. No. 2168 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2008 Judgment Koshy,J. Appellant is a statutory Corporation of State of Kerala. Two employees, namely, one M. Soopy and P.K. Babu were charge- sheeted alleging that substantial sum amounting to Rs.1,11,651.60 was lost to the Corporation because of their negligence. According to the Corporation, shortage irregularities occurred due to the negligent handling of stock and mismanagement of the affairs of the Maveli store. There was no allegation of misappropriation. Annexure A2 is the charge sheet produced before this court in detail. Criminal case was registered for the very same offence. The criminal court acquitted both the accused with the following observations: “19. Though the prosecution has alleged that the accused, both of them, have misappropriated the amount, which remains not established, by falsifying the accounts no evidence whatsoever was let in to show that any entries to be recorded was suppressed or false entry was recorded in the registers or statements forwarded to the Regioinal Office or the District Depot of the KCSC Ltd. That W.A. No. 2168/2008 2 allegation of the prosecution remains totally unsubstantiated with any evidence. In short the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the case set up against the accused and these points are found against lthe prosecution.” Shri Soopy died on 2.8.2003. Wife of Shri Soopy made Exts.P2 and P4 representations as no retiral benefits were given. Till then they were not aware of any proceedings. A letter dated 22.3.2004 was issued to the wife of Shri Soopy, first writ petitioner enclosing copy of the proceedings taken against him, dated 31.12.2007. According to the Corporation, Shri Soopy, Helper in charge of Manager and Shri P.K. Babu, Helper for the period 1.2.1995 to 31.7.1995 were guilty of shortage of substantial amount and 50% of the amount is liable to be deducted from the DCRG payable to each of those employees. It is also stated that 50% of the shortage for the period 1.2.1995 to 31.3.1995 is Rs.3,089/- and for the period 1.4.1995 to 31.7.1995 is Rs.51,358/-. Interest for the above amounts at the rate of 21.25% amounting to Rs.5,689/- and Rs.90,946/- respectively was also charged and total amount to be deducted from DCRG was Rs.1,51,082/-. It is also stated in Ext.P5 that further interest is payable at the rate of 24%. Wife of Shri Soopy approached this Court. Learned single Judge found that proceedings and W.A. No. 2168/2008 3 punishments were issued after the death of the employee which cannot be done. It was submitted that enquiry was conducted wherein the employee participated. It was further submitted that he was first charged as per Annexure A2 charge sheet and pursuant to that charge, a domestic enquiry was conducted. In the domestic enquiry, part of the amount was found due. Out of charge No.1, shortage found was regarding 1,02,912.75 and it was found that liability amounting to Rs.8,738.85 was not established. Charge No.2 was not established. With regard to charge No.3, it was found that there was shortage of Rs.13.85 towards sales proceeds from 1.2.1995 to 31.3.1995 and responsibility was cast on Shri Soopy. Enquiry report was not furnished to the employee and punishment orders were also not issued. But, another memo of charge was issued on 20.3.2003 but Soopy died before taking any further action. It is contended that Annexure A4 was in addition to the other charges. In any event, according to the writ petitioner, no action was taken and this proceedings itself were made up after the first writ petitioner, wife of Soopy, made Ext.P4 representation. We are of the opinion that even after Annexure A3 enquiry report by the Enquiry Commissioner, no action was taken against the employee before his death. Punishment imposed was only recovery W.A. No. 2168/2008 4 of the amount. There is no provision for recovering 21.25% interest, that too, from the legal representatives. Pursuant to the charge memo, no punishment was imposed when the employee was alive. No punishment can be imposed after his death merely because before issuing revised charges, enquiry was conducted. Therefore, punishment order, Ext.P5 was correctly set aside by the learned single Judge because no punishment order was issued against the employee while he was in service. Therefore, appellant is bound to give DCRG and pensionary benefits according to law to the legal representatives of the deceased employee. But, we make it clear that the appellant will be free to initiate appropriate civil proceedings if they can establish that any amount is lost due to the act of the deceased employee, from the estate of the deceased. The writ appeal is dismissed. J.B.Koshy Judge Thomas P. Joseph Judge vaa W.A. No. 2168/2008 5 J.B. KOSHY AND THOMAS P.JOSEPH,JJ. ------------------------------------- W.A.No. 2168/2008 ------------------------------------- Judgment Date:1st December,2008