Chitambaresh, J.

1. The appellant while working as an Accountant in the third respondent Bank faced disciplinary action on the ground that he was privy to the indiscriminate grant of loans by the then Branch Manager. A punishment of reduction to the lower rank of Senior Clerk was imposed and an appeal filed therefrom by the appellant was rejected by the Board of Directors of the Bank. The appellant suffered the punishment and later retired from service on 30.4.2014 and the disbursement of retiral benefits like pension, gratuity, pay revision arrears etc. remains. Separate representations addressed to the Bank, its Board of Directors and the Joint Registrar by the appellant were of no avail and hence the writ petition. The appellant submitted that he does not challenge either the disciplinary proceedings or the punishment and only sought for the disbursement of his retiral benefits at the earliest.

2. The learned single Judge observed that the equitable remedy of restitution comes into play which needs no statutory sanction and that the Bank is entitled to appropriate the loss suffered from the retiral benefits of the appellant. The judgment in the case titled C.M.Philip v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies and others [2017(2) KLT 1087] concludes as follows:

“32. I hold that the Society's effort to quantify the misappropriated amount and, then, having it set off from the amounts due to Philip is unexceptionable.

33. But because Philip had retired from service long back, the Society will speed up the recovery or adjustment out of Philip's terminal benefits and pay the balance amount to him at the earliest.”

The appellant points out that the Bank cannot unilaterally appropriate amounts from the retiral benefits without resorting to the adjudicatory process under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 ['the Act' for short]. The appellant contends that the Bank has not hitherto filed any arbitration case against him under Section 69 of the Act and sought to attach the retiral benefits. Whether the retiral benefits such as pension and gratuity can be so attached is another moot question and hence the appellant claims interest on the amount due to him.

3. We heard Mr. V.G.Arun, Advocate on behalf of the appellant, Mr. R.Surendran, Advocate on behalf of the Bank and Mrs. K.R.Deepa, Senior Government Pleader.

4. The following penalties can be imposed on any member of the establishment of a co-operative society under Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 ['the Rules for short'] for good and sufficient reasons:

“(a) Censure;

(b) Fine (in the case of employees in the last grade);

(c) Withholding of increments with or without cumulative effect;

(d) Withholding of promotion;

(e) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the society, by negligence’s or breach of orders or otherwise;

(f) Reduction to a lower rank;

(g) Compulsory retirement;

(h) Dismissal from service.”

The disciplinary authority could have imposed the punishment of recovery from pay of any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank while the appellant was in service as a member of the establishment. No such penalty was imposed and the disciplinary authority was rest contended with imposing the penalty of reduction to a lower rank which the appellant has already suffered. A fresh disciplinary proceedings for imposing the penalty of recovery from pay (even if it includes pension) can be initiated only if the appellant is still a member of the establishment. No other disciplinary proceedings are possible at this juncture after the appellant has retired from service on 30.4.2014 and four years have elapsed since then. There is therefore no rationale or justification in the Bank retaining the retiral benefits of the appellant which are no longer a bounty but valuable rights in his hands.

5. The learned single Judge has observed that the principles of unjust enrichment and restitution enables the bank to suo motu appropriate the amounts fr