The judgment underscores that compulsory retirement's effectivity is contingent upon proper communication and substantiates grounds for disciplinary dismissal based on proved charges.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who was working as a UPSA in the school managed by the 4^th respondent herein, was proceeded against in connection with the disciplinary steps initiated leading to the issuance of Ext.P5 order, by which the next annual increment to the petitioner was permanently barred. Pending the appeal against Ext.P5 order, Ext.P10 memo of charges was also issued to the petitioner subsequent to his suspension from service on 24.11.2015. A perusal of Ext.P10 memo of charges would show that as many as ten charges were levelled against the petitioner. Out of the above, one charge was with reference to a complaint filed by one Sithara Kadan, who happened to be the wife of the headmaster of the school. A criminal case was also charged against the petitioner by the Manjeshwar Police. The petitioner sought to file Ext.P11 statement of defence seeking to explain the charges levelled against her. A departmental enquiry was also conducted, leading to the finalisation of Ext.P12 dated 10.05.2016, essentially pointing out that the charges levelled against the petitioner as above were proved and further directing the manager to “initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner herein immediately”. On this basis, Ext.P15 order dated 02.03.2017 was issued by the 4^th respondent manager, imposing a punishment of compulsory retirement from service w.e.f. 24.11.2015 - the date of suspension. The order at Ext.P15 is also challenged before the 2^nd respondent herein by instituting Ext.P16 appeal. The appeals preferred as above – the appeal against Ext.P5 and the appeal against Ext.P15 were disposed of by Exts.P18 and P19 orders, respectively. The 2^nd respondent – Appellate Authority, by the afore orders, allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders and directing a fresh enquiry in the matter. On the basis of afore, fresh enquiry proceedings were taken, leading to Ext.P25 report from the side of the 3^rd respondent dated 07.01.2020. In the subsequent enquiry report at Ext.P25 also, ten charges, noticed above, were found to have been proved, amounting to gross negligence on the side of the petitioner. On the basis of this, after issuing a show cause notice and also after considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, the 4^th respondent manager came out with order at Ext.P29 dated 24.06.2020, imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement from service; however, with retrospective effect from the forenoon of 24.11.2015. The order at Ext.P29 was challenged before the 2^nd respondent by filing an appeal and also before the Government, by a revision however, both were unsuccessful as evidenced by the orders at Exts.P32 and P37. In the order at Ext.P37, apart from confirming the findings in the impugned order, the Government found that the petitioner herein may not be entitled to receive the pension as well as the subsistence allowance for the period from 24.11.2015 simultaneously. Therefore, it was directed in the said order that while calculating the pension from 24.11.2015, the subsistence allowances already paid are to be given credit. It is seeking to challenge Ext.P37 order issued as above that the petitioner is before this Court.

2. I have heard Sri. Shrihari Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. N.B. Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Sri.P.B. Subramanyan, the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent Manager. In spite of service of notice, there is no appearance from the side of the 5^th respondent, who is stated to have been appointed in the place of the petitioner.

3. Sri.Shrihari Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would con