Disciplinary proceedings initiated after retirement for events occurring more than 4 years before retirement are in violation of Rule 3 of Part III KSR.

JUDGMENT :

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

1. The petitioner in W.P.(C). No.33134/2017 has filed the instant Writ Appeal under S.5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, so as to impugn the judgment dated 28.1.2021 in W.P.(C).No. 33134/2017, to the extent it has denied the interest on the delayed payment of retirement benefits of due to the petitioner by the respondent Kerala State Electricity Board.

2. Heard Smt.Shameena Salahudheen, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the W.A./petitioner in the W.P.(C) and Sri.M.K.Thankappan, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) appearing for the respondents in the W.A./respondents in the W.P.(C).

3. While the appellant/petitioner in the W.P.(C) was working as Assistant Engineer in the Electrical Section concerned of the respondent KSEB, the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) had conducted inspection in the premises of the consumer of the respondent KSEB on 23.1.2012 and had allegedly detected power theft. Consequently, the petitioner was served with Ext.P-4 memo/letter dated 21.1.2016 issued by the 5th respondent Executive Engineer, KSEB Electrical Division, Ernakulam, seeking his explanation in the delay in detecting power theft. The main defence of the appellant was that, the consumer in question had filed Ext.P-1 W.P.(C) No.17975/2014 before this Court challenging the impugned proceedings against him pursuant to the inspection conducted by the APTS and this Court as per Ext.P-2 judgment dated 30.7.2014 had directed that a revised bill will be issued to him limiting assessment to two years.

4. It is common ground that the respondent KSEB authorities had in fact complied with the directions in Ext.P-2 judgment. So, the appellant has contended that without challenging the judgment at Ext.P-2 rendered by this Court in the said W.P.(C) and without initiating disciplinary action against the petitioner, the respondents herein are estopped from proceeding further against the petitioner. It appears that the writ petitioner has retired from service on 30.4.2016. The abovesaid memo as per Ext.P-4 dated 21.1.2016 was issued by the respondents to the appellant prior to his retirement from service. It appears that, citing the pendency of the said proceedings at Ext.P-4 dated 21.1.2016, the retirement benefits of the petitioner was delayed. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioner has filed the instant W.P.(C). No.33134/2017 seeking the following reliefs: [See pages 29 & 30 of the paper book of this Writ Appeal)].

“i. to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to sanction and disburse retirement benefits due to the petitioner including Pension in full, Death cum Retirement Gratuity, Commuted Value of Pension, Pension arrears, and DR arrears (Pension) and other attendant benefits attached thereto, at the earliest, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

ii. to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay penal interest at market rate on the delay caused in payment of terminal benefits due to the petitioner;

iii. to call for records leading to Ext.P4 communication dated 21/01/2016 issued by the 5th respondent and all proceedings leading that and pursuant thereto and to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the same;

iv. to declare that the acts of respondents insofar as proposing to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P4, even without issuing a memo of charges or show cause notice, subsequent to his retirement is illegal, improper, perfunctory, mala fide action in bad faith, arbitrary, baseless, ultra vires, and is against the provisions of Regulations of 1969;

v. to mould and issue any other writ or direction appropriate in the circumstances of this case which this Hon’ble Court deems just, fit, proper and necessary and to grant cost of this proceedings to the petitioner.”

5. After hearing both sides the learned Single Judge has rendered the impugned judgment i