The court emphasizes the necessity of ensuring due process for appellants in a writ petition, especially regarding the right to present a defense.

JUDGMENT

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,JThis intra-court appeal is filed by respondents 2 and 3 in W.P. (C)No.21930 of 2022, challenging the judgment dated 19.08.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition. 2. The 1strespondent herein/writ petitioner joined the services of the appellants as junior clerk on 01.03.1989 and retired from service on 30.4.2022, after rendering 32 years of service. While in service, the 1strespondent faced disciplinary proceedings along with one Sheeja.C.Nair for supervisory lapses, which gave an opportunity to one Mariamma Sebastian, to siphon off Rs.50,60,000/-. The enquiry officer found the 1strespondent guilty and consequently, the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty cutting of four annual increments and ordering recovery of half of the loss caused to the bank.

3. The first respondent filed an appeal challenging the same and the appellate authority imposed a punishment, cutting two increments, with cumulative effect and ordered recovery of half of the loss caused to the bank i.e., Rs.25,30,000/-. Thereafter, the first respondent joined duty in November 2018 and continued in service, till 30.4.2022, the date of her superannuation. During this period, the appellants did not take any step to recover the loss from the first respondent. But, after retirement of the first respondent, none of her retiremental benefits including gratuity, were paid to her. Even though the LIC credited an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- under the Group Gratuity Scheme, the said amount was also retained by the appellants, without paying it to the 1^st respondent. Then, the first respondent submitted Ext.P4 representation before the appellants seeking release of the gratuity amount and leave surrender benefits. But again, there was no response. It is in such circumstances, the first respondent filed the afore writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 2 and 3 to pay the entire amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as gratuity which the petitioner is legally entitled to get.

(ii) a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding respondents 2 and 3 to pay the entire amount of Rs.8,83,972/- payable to the petitioner by way of leave surrender.

(iii) a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the 1^st respondent to see that the respondents 2 and 3 have duly discharged their statutory liability by paying the entire amount due to the petitioner by way of gratuity and leave surrender.”

4. The learned Single Judge by judgment dated 19.08.2022, allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to pay to the first respondent the amount received by them from the LIC with interest.

5. Heard Adv.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Adv.Shaji Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge has, at the time of admission itself, without even granting an opportunity to the appellants to file a counter affidavit, disposed of the writ petition and the same has caused considerable prejudice to the appellants. He submitted that the first respondent has been found guilty in a disciplinary proceedings initiated against her and there is an order of recovery of Rs.25,30,000/- against her. He also submitted that, going by Rule 198(7) of the Co-operative Societies Rules, the Bank is entitled for a lien and can retain any amount payable to the first respondent and adjust the same towards the liability of the first respondent. He