S. YADAVA Vs. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Does the disciplinary proceedings initiated under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules, come to an end on the retirement of the employee is the issue to be resolved in this writ appeal.

(2.) This writ appeal is filed challenging the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings initiated before retirement and also for a direction to disburse the retiral benefits. The petitioner who joined the service of the Kerala State Co-operative Bank in the year 1989 was posted as Manager on 20/2/2014. He was served with Ext.P3 memo of charges on 26/2/2020 on the ground that while officiating as a Manager of the Hosangadi Branch of the first respondent Bank, there were serious irregularities in granting loans to several customers by showing higher value to the secured assets. The petitioner was suspended by Ext.P4 order dtd. 30/4/2020. By Ext.P6 order certain charges were deleted on 13/5/2020. Thereafter, the appellant retired from service on 31/5/2020. The appellant contended that in the absence of any enabling provision in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act or Rules for continuing the disciplinary enquiry after retirement, the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is without jurisdiction and that Rule 198 (7) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (for brevity the 'KCS Rules') do not grant any permission to go ahead with the disciplinary proceedings, and consequently the appellant is entitled to get all the terminal benefits.

(3.) The learned single Judge, who considered the matter found that the enquiry can continue against a retired employee in cases where memo of charges was served while the employee was working and that the power of the Society to recover the amounts is not denuded even after the retirement. In the instant case since the memo was issued while the petitioner was in service, which denotes the start of the departmental proceedings, the same can be continued by withholding the retiral benefits. In is only in cases where there are no rules that the employer will be prevented from initiating or continuing departmental proceedings against the retired employee. In that view of the matter the judgments cited before the learned single Judge were distinguished and the writ petition dismissed.