Disciplinary proceedings can continue against a retired employee if charges were served during employment, as per applicable rules.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of March 2021 Through instant writ petition initiation and continuation of disciplinary proceedings after having served memo of charges Ext.P3 have been challenged. 2. Petitioner joined the service on 17.05.1989 and retired on 31.05.2020 on attaining the age of superannuation. On 30.04.2020, on the verge of retirement while officiating as the Manager of Hosangadi branch, was suspended on the allegation of serious irregularities in granting numerous loans to several customers, by assessing more value to the secured asset etc. Prior thereto, in the month of May, 2019 petitioner was issued with a notice by the 2nd respondent seeking explanation of initiation of the disciplinary proceedings which were not found to be satisfied.

3. Mr. Jawahar Jose, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised only pure question of law that there is no deeming fiction in Rule 198(7) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules' for short) for continuation of the enquiry against the retired employee. At the best the respondents can initiate the proceedings as envisaged under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short). In support of the contention reliance has been laid to the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court inChairman-Cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited V. Rabindranath Choubey (2020 SCC OnLine sc 470) wherein after discussing entire case law on the topic, it was held though as per the provisions of the Rule, the employer, has a right to withhold the payment of gratuity during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings and also permit the continuous enquiry against the retired employee, in the absence of any provisions in the Rules respondents cannot withhold the retirement benefits. In Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited, Andrapradesh Vs. K.Satyanarayana Rao (2010)15 SCC 322 it was held that in the absence of Rule department proceeding against the retired employees cannot continue and similar is the judgment inDev Prakash Tewari Vs. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow and Others (2014) 7 SCC 260. To buttress his argument that initiation of the proceedings if any to be under of the Act, reliance is made to judgment of Supreme Court inMaharashtra State Co-operative Housing Finance Corporation Limited Vs. Prabhakar Sitaram Bhadange (2017) 5 SCC 623 . The definition of “dispute” in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act would also mean a claim in respect of any sum, whether claim be admitted or not.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents controverted the aforementioned submissions by submitting that the language of Rule 198(7) is clear and unambiguous. It pertains to retired employees. Enquiry proceedings would be deemed to be pending from the day when the memo of charge was served. Memo of charge was served when the employee was in the employment, he failed to reply to the show cause notice, was allowed to retire and so far has not filed any reply. The judgments relied upon would not help the petitioner as inquiry proceedings cannot be permitted to close as every employee would make an endeavour to get rid of the efflux of time and squander away the dues of department.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books.

6. Section 2 (i) of the Act defines “dispute”, which means any matter touching the business, constitution, establishment or management of a society capable of being the subject of litigation and includes a claim in respect of any sum payable to or by a society whether such claim be admitted or not. Section 69 (1)(h) of the Act provides a mechanism of settling monetary dispute through the office of the Registrar. Though in first blush the argument of Mr.Jawahar Jose by referring of the Act read with the definition of dispute that the disciplinary action may not continue, looke