Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

1. C.M. Philip, the petitioner, now retired, while serving the third-respondent Society, faced disciplinary proceedings: when he was working as an accountant, along with the Assistant Secretary, he misappropriated funds.

2. Initially, on 17.1.2011 the Society suspended Philip, but on 2.1.2012, pending the disciplinary proceedings, it reinstated him. Eventually, the Society concluded the disciplinary proceedings it initiated against Philip: he was found guilty of embezzlement and misappropriation. He was punished with reversion in the rank-from Accountant to Senior Clerk. Philip retired from service on 30th April 2014. Though he filed an intradepartmental appeal before he could retire, after Philip's retirement, the Appeal Committee dismissed the appeal through Ext.P3 on 16.7.2014. No further challenge laid, the punishment imposed on Philip became final.

3. Duly retired, in course of time, Philip submitted Ext.P4 representation claiming his terminal benefits. His request not accepted, Philip has filed this writ petition.

Objection :

Pending Proceedings :

4. Before I could adjudicate on merits, the Society's counsel has submitted that the other delinquent employee-the Assistant Secretary, who too was punished-filed WPC No.25299 of 2011. According to him, the Society objected to the Assistant Secretary's writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy. But this Court went ahead and decided it in the delinquent employee's favour. He has further submitted that, aggrieved, the Society has filed an appeal, now pending before a learned Division Bench. In these circumstances, the Society's counsel has urged this Court not to decide the issue but to await the writ appeal's outcome.

5. On the other hand, Philip's counsel has submitted that the issue in this writ petition differs from that in WPC No.25299 of 2011, filed by the Assistant Secretary. According to him, in the other writ petition, the employee questioned the very punishment. Here, Philip accepted the punishment; he questioned only the Society's disinclination to disburse his terminal benefits.

6. After hearing both the counsel, I reckon that the issue raised in this writ petition differs from the one raised in WPC No.25299 of 2011. Subject to other parameters, I believe, I can proceed with the matter on merits.

Submissions on Merits :

Petitioner's :

7. On merits, Sri V.G. Arun, Philip's counsel, has submitted that the terminal benefits, as is well established, are not a bounty. Nor are they matters of the employer's munificence. So, he contends that the Society has no justification to withhold Philip's terminal benefits.

8. Sri V.G. Arun, to begin with, has contended that the Society could not continue with the disciplinary proceedings even after Philip's retirement. He has further submitted that neither the Kerala Co-operative Society Act nor any other statute governing the Society interdicts an employee's right to receive terminal benefits once he or she is allowed to retire in the usual course. In other words, unless an employee's services were terminated because of any grave misconduct, the mere reduction in rank will not affect his prospects to receive the terminal benefits.

9. In elaboration, Sri Arun has drawn my attention to Rule 198 of the Kerala Cooperative Society Rules, to hammer home his contention that once an employer chooses a particular form of punishment, it cannot travel beyond that and order recovery of money, too. Put differently, reduction in rank does not contemplate recovery of money from the delinquent merely because he did not question the punishment. The proposed recovery from Philip, according to Sri Arun, amounts to double jeopardy.

10. Specifically referring to Philip's entitlement to receiving the gratuity, Sri Arun has drawn my attention to Section 4 (4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. He has submitted that unless the employee's service is terminated, the employer cannot withhold or deduct the gratuity from the retired empl