IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34758 of 2008(K) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- GEETHA.G, W/O.PRADEEP, AGED 34 YEARS, ASSISTANT, DEPARTMENT TEST DIVISION (SPECIAL), K.P.S.C., PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. COMMITTEE FOR REDRESSAL OF COMPLAINTS OF WOMEN EMPLOYEES, K.P.S.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON. 7. ABOO SALI, DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN FOR R1 & R5 ADV SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, KPSC FOR R2 TO R4 & R6, R7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ P.N.Ravindran, J. ===================== W.P(C).No.34758 of 2008 ===================== Dated this the 25th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard Sri.C.A.Chacko, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Alexander Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the Kerala Public Service Commission. 2. The petitioner is an employee of the Kerala Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as the “Commission” for short. On a complaint filled by the petitioner, alleging sexual harassment at the hands of the seventh respondent, disciplinary action was initiated against him. A committee was constituted as directed by the Honourable the Supreme Court in Visakha & Ors v. State of Rajastan & Ors - (1997) 6 S.C.C. 241. The petitioner complained about the sexual harassment way back in December, 2005. After committee was constituted to enquire into the complaint of sexual harassment, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.28405 of 2006 in this Court challenging the constitution of the said committee. The said committee enquired into the complaint evidenced by Ext.P1 and held that the charge against the seventh respondent has not been proved and that no action need be taken in the matter. However, the full Commission that met later decided to constitute a fresh committee. The said committee conducted a fresh enquiry in which the WP(C) 34758/08 -: 2 :- petitioner also participated. By Ext.P3 report dated 8.7.2008, the committee found that the seventh respondent is guilty of harassing the petitioner sexually. The Commission thereafter considered the report and imposed on the seventh respondent the punishment of censure. The petitioner moved the Commission seeking a review of the said order. Though a review was not maintainable, the Commission entertained the review petition and rejected it. The petitioner thereafter applied for a copy of the order imposing punishment and it was declined. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the adequacy of the punishment awarded to the seventh respondent and prays for a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to impose on him adequate punishment proportionate to the gravity of charges found against him in Ext.P3. 3. The seventh respondent is due to retire from service on 30.11.2008. Ext.P3 enquiry report is dated 8.7.2008. Based on the enquiry report, punishment was imposed on the seventh respondent. Though the petitioner sought a review of the order imposing punishment in Ext.P11 review petition that request was considered and rejected recently. In these circumstances, even if the petitioner's contentions are accepted and the order imposing punishment of censure is set aside and respondents 2 and 3 are directed to consider the entire issue afresh and pass revised orders that cannot be done before 30.11.2008 on which date, the seventh respondent will retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation. WP(C) 34758/08 -: 3 :- 4. It is trite law that after retirement no punishment can be imposed on an employee other than to recover the pecuniary loss caused by his misconduct to the employer or to withhold or reduce the pension. In that view of the matter, even if the request made by the petitioner is entertained and ultimately granted, it would be a futile exercise in the sense that after 30.11.2008 no punishment can be imposed on the seventh respondent. Such being the situation, I find no reason to entertain this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. It is clarified that the dismissal of this Writ Petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner working out other remedies, if any, available to her in law. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 26/11