Validity of imposing penalties on employees after retirement and the authority to continue departmental proceedings after retirement.

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned.

2. It has been stated that the petitioner had joined in the respondent Company as a sub-staff, on 13. 1959. Subsequently, he was promoted as a Junior Assistant in the year, 1965. In the month of July, 1984, he was promoted as a Senior Assistant and he had retired from service in the year, 1998, as a Senior Assistant. At the time of his retirement, he was working at Division No.2-46, Moore Street, Chennai. During his employment, the petitioner was holding the post of Union Joint Secretary in General Insurance Employees Union.

3. It has been further stated that the petitioner and his family members are eligible to claim reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by them. While working as a Senior Assistant, the petitioner was served a memorandum of charges, on 1. 1998, by the Deputy Manager of the respondent Company alleging that the petitioner had claimed reimbursement of medical bills for a sum of Rs.31,504/-, by submitting nine medical bills during the years 1993, 1994 and 1995, which had been fraudulently obtained from M/s. Nandanam Common Hospital. It has been further alleged that on verification, it was found that the petitioner had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty violating Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) and (iii) of the General Insurance (Conduct and Discipline) and Appeal Rules, 1975 and thereby, he had committed misconduct under Rule 4(i) and 5 of the said Rules.

.4. It has been further stated that the petitioner had submitted an explanation, on 21. 1998, denying the charges. However, the petitioner had received a letter, dated 2. 1998, from the Assistant Manager of the respondent Company stating that a preliminary enquiry would be held, on 2. 1998. The petitioner had participated in the preliminary enquiry having a union Secretary as the defence Assistant. Thereafter, a regular enquiry was held, on 2. 1998. In the said enquiry, the respondent had produced Exhibit M.D.10, dated 2. 1996, which is the letter issued by Doctor T.K.Venkataraman of Nandanam Common Hospital, wherein it was stated that he had issued the certificate at the request of the petitioner to enable him to claim reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on various dates. However, Dr.T.K.Venkataraman, who had issued such a certificate, had not been examined during the enquiry.

5. The petitioner has further submitted that, on 21. 1998, Dr.T.K.Venkataraman had addressed a letter to him stating that he had been compelled to give a letter, dated 2. 1996, on account of the pressure exerted by the respondent Company. Thus, it is clear that the respondent Company had decided to victimise the petitioner for his trade union activities. Since the enquiry was mainly based on the letter, dated 2. 1996, issued by Dr.T.K.Venkataraman without examining him as a witness, the enquiry is void in the eye of law.

6. It has been further submitted that, on 21. 1998, the petitioner was permitted to retire from service. There is no mention about the departmental proceedings pending against the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents have no authority or jurisdiction to proceed with the departmental enquiry, after the petitioner had retired from service, on 21. 1998. Further, the service regulations of the respondent Company do not provide for the continuation of the departmental proceedings after the retirement of the employee. Therefore, in the absence of such statutory regulations to continue the departmental proceedings, the entire proceedings would stand vitiated.

7. The petitioner has further stated that the respondent Company had paid the benefits due to the petitioner, on 6. 1999. However, they had deducted a sum of Rs.12,000/-, towards the interest for the housing loan, which is an arbitrary act on the part of the respondents.

.8. It has been further stated that, on 9. 1998, the enquiry officer had submitted his report holding that the charges against the petitioner wer