ORDER :

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in the proceedings of the fourth respondent in  SL5/12171/ 2021 dated 14.05.2024 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the fourth respondent to pay the amount of Rs.1,19,115/- and also direct the fourth respondent to pay 18% interest for the delayed payment of the earned and unearned leave balances to the petitioner.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner joined the service of the first respondent office on 03.02.1982 as Junior Assistant and was promoted as Assistant Manager (QC) on 30.08.2009 under the third respondent and attained superannuation on 30.09.2012. The petitioner while working as Assistant Quality Inspector, was responsible for transportation of paddy from Kumbakonam Railway Station, Thanjai Region to Mettupalayam Railway Station, Coimbatore Region. He was issued with a show cause notice on 03.08.1999, calling upon him to submit an explanation with regard to the recovery of a sum of Rs.28978.45 being 50% of the total loss caused to the respondent Corporation on account of transit of paddy in the month of November, 1992, wherein deficit of 1% weight was noticed and the value of the same was Rs.57,956.85.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner submitted his reply on 28.09.1999 stating that the loss was on account of the fact that when paddy was received, it was wet and in the transit, on account of drying up, the weight was reduced by 2%. In normal course, the reduction to that extent is permissible on account of drying up of paddy. Thereafter, the second respondent passed order dated 22.10.1999 directing recovery of a sum of Rs.28,978.45 being 50% of the total loss. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the first respondent and the first respondent rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred writ petition in W.P.No.2403 of 2002 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 08.11.2010 allowed the said writ petition and challenging the same, the respondents 1 and 2 preferred appeal in W.A.No.2185 of 2011 and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 27.11.2014 dismissed the said writ appeal.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that at the time of retirement, the respondents withheld the petitioner’s backwages of earned leave and unearned leave and seeking the same, the petitioner made representation to the respondents and since there was no response, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17949 of 2017 and pursuant to the order of this Court dated 21.01.2020 made in the said writ petition, the respondents released a sum of Rs.3,20,907/- and withheld a sum of Rs.1,19,115/- and challenging the same the petitioner filed W.P.No.13327 of 2021 and pursuant to the order of this Court dated 27.11.2023, the impugned order was issued.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the amount of Rs.1,19,115/- was withheld without any provision of law that too by way of un-implemented punishment for stock deficit, transit loss. If it is so, the respondents ought to have concluded the disciplinary proceedings prior to retirement. The learned counsel further submitted that after retirement, there is no master and servant relationship and hence the impugned order is not sustainable one.

6.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner in his representation dated 17.09.2012 addressed to the third respondent requested to make recoveries from the encashment of earned leave towards statutory deduction if any ordered due to transit loss, stock deficit. Only after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order was passed.

7.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8