The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reduction in pension should be considered by the authority imposing the penalty at the time of imposition, and failure to do so would amount to impermissible re-appreciation of the facts and double jeopardy.

JUDGMENT :

This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers :

“(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records relating to Exhibit P9 and quash the same.

(ii) To direct the respondents to sanction and pay the full amount of pension to the petitioner from the date of his retirement on 17.11.2014 and continue to pay the same every month.

(iii) To direct the respondents to forthwith regularize the suspension period of the petitioner from 21.6.2003 to 7.11.2006 as duty and pay all consequential benefits to him within a prescribed time limit.

(iv) To direct the third respondent to forthwith take a decision on the arrears of salary and allowances due to the petitioner as directed in Exhibit P9 order of the second respondent within a prescribed time limit.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, who was working as Senior Superintendent in the Kerala State Electricity Board, was placed under suspension on 21.06.2006 on allegations with regard to assisting in theft of electricity by consumer. It is submitted that a memo of charges was issued to him on 02.08.2006 to which the petitioner submitted his reply. Finding the reply unsatisfactory, a disciplinary enquiry was ordered to be conducted against the petitioner. The petitioner had been reinstated in service on 07.11.2006, pending finalization of the disciplinary proceedings. After conduct of the enquiry, an order was passed on 07.11.2014 imposing the penalty of removal from service on the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent as against the order of removal. By Ext.P1 proceedings dated 06.08.2015, the 2nd respondent considered the pathetic condition of the family of the appellant and, taking a lenient view, decided to modify the punishment of removal as compulsory retirement with effect from the date of removal. It is contended that Ext.P2 Non Liability Certificate was also issued to the petitioner stating that there are no liabilities to the Board or the Government outstanding from the petitioner. However, the retirement benefits were not disbursed to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 petition before the 2nd respondent seeking the release of the retirement benefits.

4. It is submitted that on 25.10.2017, Ext.P4 order was passed by the 2nd respondent contending that Rule 6(a) of Part III, KSR provides power in the authority which passed the order of punishment to order a reduction either in pension or DCRG or both. Therefore, the 2nd respondent, after examining the entire file, decided to reduce 50% of the eligible pension of the petitioner and settled his pensionary benefits. It is submitted that the petitioner had submitted representations against the said order which were rejected by Ext.P6. The petitioner thereupon approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.6725/2020. This Court considered the contentions advanced on either side and held as follows :

“5. Even when I hear Sri. M.K. Thankappan on the afore lines, the fact remains that in Ext.P1, the competent Authority namely the Chairman and the Managing Director did not mention anything about the reduction of the pension of the petitioner but only modified his earlier punishment of removal from the service as compulsory retirement. Obviously therefore, when Ext.P1 is silent as regards the pension of the petitioner, it is seriously doubtful whether Ext.P2 could have been issued by the same Authority invoking the powers under Rule 6(a) Part III of the KSR, particularly when the said Rule obligates the Authority -while imposing the punishment -to deal with the question of reduction of pension also. The fact that Ext.P1 is silent is admitted and therefore, the acme question is whether the Chairman and the Managing Director could have issued Ext.P2 in such a manner, which, prima