PASAYAT, C.J.

The only question which needs adjudication in this writ appeal is whether the direction for recovery of loss allegedly sustained on account of appellant's conduct was imposed by way of punishment as contended by appellant, or as a mode of adjustment/recovery in respect of the loss sustained by it on account of his conduct as contended by the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). Learned single Judge by the impugned judgment held that it was not, in reality an order of punishment but was only a direction to recover the loss sustained by the Corporation.

Factual position needs to be noted in brief : Appellant was functioning as the Administrative Officer of the Corporation. Proceedings were initiated against him for alleged misconduct and irregularities. One of the allegations was that he caused huge slots to the Corporation by several acts of omissions and commissions. An enquiry Was conducted in the matter. After receiving the enquiry report a notice was issued to the appellant to show cause as to why action shall not be taken against him for recovery. However, it was noted that since the appellant was at the fag end of his career, it was decided not to award any punishment as provided in the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Limited Service Rules for Officers, 1973 (in short 'the Rules'). Appellant was allowed to superannuate on reaching the age of superannuation. In the enquiry it was found that appellant was responsible for loss to the Corporation to the tune of about Rs. 19.77 lakhs. He was directed to show cause why the said amount shall not be recovered from him. Explanation submitted was not found acceptable and the impugned order annexed as Ext. P-16 to the original petition was passed, which was challenged in the original petition. By the said order, inter alia recovery was directed.Stand of the appellant was that recovery from gratuity payable to him is not a punishment which is enumerated under the Rules, and therefore there was no scope for recovering the amount in the departmental proceedings. Corporation took the stand that the order passed was not one which is connected with any punishment. It was in fact an order directing to recover the loss sustained to the Corporation on account of misconduct/irregularities committed by the appellant. In fact the charge itself was that huge loss was caused to the Corporation by the irregularities of the appellant. Enquiry was conducted and finding has been recorded about the loss having been incurred on account of appellant's lapses. Amount was also quantified. The show cause notice itself indicated that the Corporation did not want to impose any punishment because appellant had almost reached superannuation age. What was sought to be recovered was the liability fixed. Since the amount of gratuity was available with the Corporation, same was adjusted towards the liability.

As noted above learned single Judge did not find any substance in the plea of the appellant and rejected the original petition. Respective stands of the contesting parties before, learned single Judge were reiterated in this writ appeal.

Rule 19 of the Rules provides punishments that can be imposed and the same reads as follows :

"Rule 19. PUNISHMENTS : An officer can be punished either by censure, stoppage of increments, suspension, reduction in rank, discharge or dismissal by the Managing Director for a misconduct proved against him."

Obviously recovering any amount in respect of loss sustained by the Corporation is not one of the punishments provided for.

As was observed by the Apex Court in M/s. Glaxo Laboratories (P.) Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Meerut, AIR 1984 SC 505 : (1983 Lab IC 1909) some misconduct neither defined nor enumerated and which may be believed by the employer to be misconduct ex post facto would expose the workman to a penalty. It cannot be left to the vagaries of management to say ex post facto that some acts of omi