IMPORTANT POINT
The denial of terminal benefits for a period of suspension treated as duty is unjustified, affirming the entitlement to full service benefits.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner, who is the former Principal of the College managed by the 4^th respondent, has filed this writ petition seeking to command the respondents to sanction and disburse the terminal benefits due to the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks to declare that he is entitled to interest at the rate of 8% for the delayed payment of terminal benefits.

2. The petitioner states that while working as Principal of the College, he was proceeded with disciplinary action and kept under suspension from 30.08.2016. The Equiry Officer submitted a report finding the petitioner guilty. The petitioner challenged the enquiry report by filing W.P.(C) No.22680/2018. This Court allowed the said writ petition setting aside the enquiry report.

3. As this Court had directed a de novo enquiry, a notice was served on the petitioner proposing to impose punishment of reversion to a lower post. This proposal was made, according to the petitioner, without conducting any de novo enquiry. Therefore, the petitioner challenged the show-cause notice. This Court allowed W.P.(C) No.5136 of 2021 quashing the notice but giving liberty to the Manager to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

4. The petitioner submits that in the meanwhile, the petitioner retired from service on superannuation with effect from 31.05.2022. The respondents, however, did not pay the terminal benefits due to the petitioner. It was in such circumstances that the petitioner filed this writ petition.

5. In the meanwhile, the College authorities passed Ext.P2 order on 25.07.2022. The Management was not inclined to proceed further with the disciplinary action since the petitioner had retired on 31.05.2022. The Management, therefore, resolved to absolve the petitioner of the only remaining charge No.7 and to drop all disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The Management also decided to treat the entire period of suspension as duty in accordance with the rules and regulations for all practical purposes.

6. In this writ petition, this Court passed an interim order on 20.06.2023 and consequently, the petitioner has been paid provisional pension. The office of the Accountant General (A&E), Kerala issued Ext.P8 pension payment order dated 18.08.2023. In the said pension payment order, the period from 11.09.1995 to 05.10.1995 and the period from 05.08.2016 to 31.05.2022 were treated as period of service not qualifying for pension.

7. The petitioner states that though the petitioner had more than 25 years of service, the additional 5^th respondent has taken into account only 20 years, 10 months and 29 days as qualifying service for the purpose of computation of pension and has ignored more than 5 years of service of the petitioner during which the petitioner was put under suspension.

8. The petitioner submits that placing the petitioner under suspension was totally unwarranted and the petitioner was illegally kept out of duty. Since the petitioner was put under suspension, he could not discharge his duties during this 5 year period. However, for the purpose of service and computation of pension, the entire service of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment till 31.05.2022, his date of retirement of superannuation, has to be calculated taking into consideration the fact that the Management has treated the entire period of suspension as duty for all purposes.

9. The 1^st respondent entered appearance through Government Pleader and resisted the writ petition. The 1^st respondent submitted that by judgment dated 30.05.2022 in WP(C)No.5136/2021, this Court directed the Manager to refer Charge No.7 to the enquiry officer and to conclude the enquiry after affording an opportunity of being heard. But, the Manager did not comply with the direction and simply concluded the disciplinary proceedings stating that they are not inclined to proceed further with the disciplinary action and resolved to absolve him of Charge No.7 and to drop all disciplinary proceedings against him. Such an