IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 451 of 2010 -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.27359/2009 Dated 28/01/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------- 1. INDIAN RARE EARTHS LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, PLOT NO.1207, VEER SAVARKAR MARG, NEAR SIDDHI VINAYAK TEMPLE, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI - 400 028. 2. THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDIAN RARE EARTHS LIMITED, PLOT NO.1207, VEER SAVARKAR MARG, NEAR SIDDHI VINAYAK TEMPLE, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI - 400 028. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ------------------------- K.R.VENUGOPALAN, KADAVIL HOUSE, A2 - AISHWARYA GARDENS, KURKKANCHERI P.O THRISSUR - 680 007. BY ADV.SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.No.451/2010 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 19th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. This Writ Appeal is preferred against an interim order. The respondent/writ petitioner was due to retire from service on 31.3.2009. On the eve of his retirement, he was served with Ext.P1 memo of charges dated 25.3.2009. Now, the proceedings against him are continued under Rule 30A of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. In view of the pendency of the proceedings, the various benefits payable to the respondent were not released. Therefore, the Writ Petition was filed by him, challenging the proceedings and also for a further direction to release the terminal benefits due to him. By way of an interim order the learned Single Judge directed to release all the service benefits due to the respondent, except gratuity. It was based on the finding that the only possible punishment that could be imposed on him was forfeiture of D.C.R.G. Feeling WA No.451/2010 - 2 - aggrieved by the said finding, this Writ Appeal is preferred. 2. According to the appellants, as part of the punishment various retirement benefits can be withheld. The rule also permits non-payment of gratuity. So, the only possible punishment that could be imposed on the respondent is non- payment of gratuity, is an erroneous finding rendered by the learned Single Judge, it is submitted. 3. We notice that going by the memo of charges, the loss caused by the respondent will come to Rs.4,42,497/-. The total amount of D.C.R.G due to the respondent will come to Rs.5,52,617/-. So, the withholding of the D.C.R.G in this case will be sufficient to meet the claim of the appellants against the respondent. Therefore, we do not intend to interfere with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. But, it is clarified that the finding that the only possible option before the disciplinary authority, pending finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent is only to withhold the D.C.R.G., is not correct, in the light of the relevant rules. WA No.451/2010 - 3 - Subject to the above clarification, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. nm.