Disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee are invalid as there's no employer/employee relationship post-retirement.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who was the former Secretary of the 1^st respondent, was suspended from service from 20.01.2015 on the basis of disciplinary proceedings against him. The disciplinary proceedings culminated in Ext.P2 dated 16.04.2016, by which the petitioner was dismissed from service. Against the dismissal as above, the petitioner preferred an appeal as prescribed under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act , 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). In the meantime, it is also to be noticed that the petitioner had admittedly retired from service on 30.09.2016. The appeal filed against Ext.P2 came to be disposed of by the Arbitration Court pursuant to Ext.P3 award dated 14.02.2023. It was found in the afore award that insofar as the charge memo, which led to the dismissal from service, was issued by a sub-committee, following the principles laid down by this Court in Kodenchery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v. Joshy Varghese [ 2020 (4) KLT 129 ], the same cannot be sustained. On the basis of the afore, the domestic enquiry initiated against the petitioner concluding in Ext.P2 was set aside, however remitting the matter, with liberty to take fresh action, if found necessary. The Arbitration Court also relied on the judgment in Pappachan v. State [1997 (1) KLT SN.64 (C.No.85)] as well as the judgment of the Apex Court in U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. and Others v. L.P.Rai [ (2007) 7 SCC 81 ]. The Arbitration Court also found that the management would be entitled to take afresh proceedings, if found necessary, within three months. On the basis of the afore, Ext.P4 charge memo dated 27.06.2023 having been issued to the petitioner herein, the petitioner has instituted the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge both Exts.P3 as well as Ext.P4. The petitioner further points out that he was not being paid his retirement benefits on account of all the above and therefore, seeks for appropriate directions for disbursement of the retirement benefits.

2. I have heard Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.C.P.Sabari, the learned counsel for the respondents herein.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.M.Sasindran, would contend that the reliance placed on the two judgments referred to above by the Arbitration Court was without any justification insofar as those judgments were not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. He would also contend that insofar as admittedly the petitioner has retired on 30.09.2016, the employer/employee relationship having come to an end, the Arbitration Court could not have issued any such directions as contained in Ext.P3 award. Therefore, according to him, the subsequent memo at Ext.P4 also cannot be sustained.

4. Per contra, Sri.C.P.Sabari, the learned counsel for the respondents forcefully contends that the writ petition itself is not maintainable. According to him, the remedy against Ext.P3 with reference to the provisions ofSection 82of the Act ought to have been initiated within a period of 60 days and insofar as this writ petition has been instituted only on 03.08.2023, the same is not maintainable. He would further contend that admittedly the petitioner was dismissed from service after issuing a charge memo, which has been found to be not valid by the Arbitration Court. Therefore, he would say that Ext.P4 is only a continuation of the proceedings already initiated and therefore, since the petitioner has retired from service along with a charge memo and the subsequent proceedings, the respondents are entitled to continue the same. In support of the afore, he sought to rely on the j