The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary proceedings should be initiated and concluded before the employee's retirement, and the rules and regulations only allow for limited continuation of disciplinary proceedings in cases related to pension withholding or recovery due to misconduct or negligence during the period of service.

1. These writ appeals were referred to a Full Bench to consider the question whether disciplinary proceedings started while an employee was in service can be continued after his retirement or termination of service. As the question has important and far-reaching effects on the service conditions of employees and disciplinary proceedings to be pursued against them, it was felt desirable and necessary that the matter should be considered and pronounced upon by a Full Bench. We shall first examine the facts in W. A. No. 294 of 1974 in which the main arguments were advanced.

W. A. No. 294 of 1974

The appellant (writ petitioner) was a Superintending Engineer of the Kerala State Electricity Board, who entered on 450 days' leave and retired voluntarily at the end of it on 15-1-1969. Normally he Should have retired on 30-7-1970. By Ext. P4 memo dated 16-12-1969 issued by the Board he was called Upon to answer certain charges of misconduct. Ext. P5 dated 13-1-1970 is a copy of his reply in answer. By Ext. P6 order dated 1-9-1971 the Government referred the charges to the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings under R.3 of Part III, Kerala Service Rules, (K. S. R. for short) for enquiry and report. Ext. P7 is a copy of the summons issued by the Tribunal to the appellant. His writ petition was to quash Exts. P6 and P7, which was dismissed by the learned Judge. The learned judge was of the view that an "employee" for purposes of Regulation.9 of the Kerala State Electricity Board (Employees Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Regulation.1969 (referred to as the Regulations, for short) included an "ex-employee" and that R.3 Part III of the K. S. R. only supported this conclusion.

2. On behalf of the petitioner two contentions were raised: first that the petitioner having already retired on 30-7-1970 the proceedings commenced against him while in service could not be continued either under the Regulations of 1969 or under the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal Rules, (the Tribunal Rules, for short). Next, that in any event the Board, under the Regulations, is the competent authority to decide the question of referring the case to the Disciplinary Tribunal and of requesting the Government to formally make the reference; and that no such decision by the Board and no request to the Government to formally make the reference had been formed or made in compliance with the Regulations.

3. R.2 of the Regulations states that these rules apply to all regular employees in the service of the Board.

4. R.6 (b) and (c) of the Regulations read:

"6 (b) The Board may, after examining the records and after making such consultation as may be deemed necessary decide whether the case shall be proceeded with and if so whether it shall be tried by the Tribunal.

(c) If the Board decide that the case shall be tried by a Tribunal the Board through its secretary shall forward all the records to Government with a specific request to refer the case to the Tribunal for trial and Government in turn shall refer the case to the Tribunal and call upon the Board to render such assistance as is required unless for specific reasons to be advised to the Board, the Government find that it is a case not fit for reference to the Tribunal."

From the above clauses, it would be seen that the decision whether the ease shall be proceeded with by the Tribunal has to be taken by the Board; and after the Board has taken the decision on the point, it is to make a specific request for reference of the case to the Tribunal by the Government. Ext. P6 order of the Government refers as Item No. 6 recited at the top of it, to a letter dated 23 31970 from the Board to the Government. Referring to the said letter the Government recited in Para.1 of Ext. P6 that the Board had recommended to the Government that the case against the appellants in the two writ appeals before us, and others, be referred to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings as contemplated in 1969 Regulations. If Exts. P6 embodi