Retired officials cannot be held liable for actions taken after their employment period, reaffirming the need for due process in pension disbursements.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, who retired from the respondent – Kerala State Electricity Board Limited as Chief Engineer (Electrical), has filed the captioned writ petition seeking directions to the respondent Board to sanction and disburse the last month's salary (May 2023), as well as all retirement benefits, including full pension, commuted value, gratuity, etc.

2. Heard Sri.Brijesh Mohan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.Antony Mukkath, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board.

3. This Court notices that the petitioner’s pensionary benefits, etc., were not disbursed, as pointed out by him, presumably on the basis of the loss sustained by the respondent Board pursuant to a bill raised against a consumer in the year 2017 for an amount of Rs.21,77,432/-. However, with reference to the afore, in paragraph No.6 of the writ petition, the petitioner has specifically pointed out that he cannot be mulcted with any liability, since he had worked as Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Kottayam, for the period from 08.09.2010 to 23.07.2014 and as Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Pallom, up to 19.08.2014. In other words, according to him, the bill in question was issued in 2017, nearly three years after he shifted from the post of Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Pallom.

4. The afore contention raised by the petitioner has been more or less accepted by the respondent Board in its counter affidavit, particularly with reference to the averments in paragraph No.4 thereof. This Court, however, notices that the stand taken by the Board was to the effect that the short assessment bill was issued even with reference to the period during which the petitioner was functioning at Kottayam, and hence he is also to be made responsible. However, with reference to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Board, this Court notices that a Non-Liability Certificate has already been issued with reference to the period during which the petitioner worked at Kottayam, as evidenced by Exts.P17 and P18. Furthermore, it is evident that no steps have been taken against any of the responsible officials of the respondent Board, even as per Ext.P22 communication dated 27.02.2024 produced by the petitioner. When that be so, this Court fails to understand as to how any proceedings can be continued against the petitioner, especially since, admittedly, the petitioner has retired from service on 31.05.2023. True, the respondent Board would have suffered a loss on account of the short assessment bill raised against a consumer, as pointed out in its counter affidavit. But how the petitioner can be dragged into the afore on the basis of the short assessment bill is also not clear.

5. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed.

6. This Court further notices that pursuant to the interim order dated 04.12.2024, the respondent Board was directed to disburse the retirement benefits to the petitioner after withholding an amount of Rs.2 lakhs. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly points out that, in compliance with the said order, the pensionary benefits have been disbursed to the petitioner after withholding an amount of Rs.2 lakhs.

In that view of the matter, I allow this writ petition, and the respondent Board is directed to disburse the amount of Rs.2 lakhs withheld pursuant to the order dated 04.12.2024, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. So as to facilitate the above, the impugned proceedings at Exts.P8, P9 and P16, insofar as they are applicable to t