IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary proceedings cannot continue post-retirement without specific provisions, and recovery from retirement benefits is impermissible without legal authority.

ORDER :

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No. TSSDC/ADMN/Disc. Case/2020-21/254 dated 18.08.2020 wherein an amount of Rs.5,68,000/- of earned leave of the petitioner is withheld as well as recovery of an amount of Rs.3,98,408/- as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to remit the sum of Rs.5,68,000/- recovered from encashment of the earned leave of the petitioner with interest at 18% per annum and to pass such other order or orders.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Store Keeper in the year 1994 in the 2nd respondent Corporation and has been discharging his duties accordingly. While the petitioner was working as Store Keeper at Nidamanoor Unit, it was alleged that there was some shortage of paddy and a Committee was constituted to enquire into the same. It is stated that Sri T. Venkataswamy, Seed Officer and Processing In-charge was responsible for the said shortages and the stocks have not been handed over to the petitioner, but unfortunately, the Committee, without looking into the statement of the petitioner, observed that the Processing Incharge has not handed over the seeds stock to the Store Keeper., the petitioner, and since the petitioner has not taken over seeds stock, both are responsible for shortage of paddy stock. On the basis of the said report of the Committee, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide orders dated 11.10.2012. Thereafter, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 05.11.2012 with the following two charges:

“(I) He failed to account for the stocks and responsible for shortage of 644.60 qtls of Paddy BPT-5204 seed valuing Rs.13,66,035/- thereby committed misconduct of misappropriation and dishonesty in connection with the Company’s business under Rule 4(x) of Disciplinary & Appeal Rules for the employees of the Corporation.”

“(II) He neglected his duties and failed to verify stocks physically and entering the IDP quantities into the stock ledgers and thereby committed misconduct of neglect of duties under Rule 4(ii) of Disciplinary & Appeal Rules for the employees of the Corporation.”

The petitioner submitted his reply denying the said charges. Thereafter, amended charge memo dated 08.01.2014 was given, wherein charge No. 1 in charge memo dated 05.11.2012 was amended alleging that the petitioner was responsible for shortages of 28,575 kgs. foundation seeds, 12,858 kgs. of certified seeds and 95,897.50 kgs. of non-seeds and different crop varieties, valued at Rs.46,34,678.14 during the year 2012-13. A statement of imputation, purportedly based on the report of the Internal Audit conducted on 16.05.2013 to 18.05.2013 behind petitioner’s back, was supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation. However, the disciplinary authority was not convinced with the explanation of the petitioner and appointed an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer did not deal with any of the contentions of the petitioner nor did he discuss any evidence and none of the witnesses mentioned in the charge memo have been examined by the enquiry officer. However, he submitted his enquiry report holding charges against the petitioner as partly proved. According to the petitioner, the enquiry was concluded within a period of half an hour by taking only the statement of the petitioner and therefore, it was not conducted in accordance with rules. The enquiry report was communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner’s explanation was called for vide memo dated 23.04.2018. In the meantime, the petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2017. But the impugned order of punishment and recovery was passed on 18.08.2020. In the order, recovery of Rs.10,66,407/- was ordered and a sum of Rs.5,68,000/- of earned leave encashment of the petitioner was withheld and balanc