Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 149 (KER)

Sreelatha Sukumar v. Kerala Financial Corporation

2021-02-17

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

body2021
JUDGMENT : The petitioner is stated to have retired from the services of the first respondent— Kerala Financial Corporation, on 31.03.2020 and she has approached this Court seeking a direction to the said Corporation to release her terminal benefits, including Gratuity and Provident Fund, along with interest at the rate of 12%, from the date it became due, until it is actually paid. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner—Sri.P.Haridas submitted that his client’s request for release of terminal benefits has been replied to by the Corporation through Exts.P7, P8, P10 and P11, wherein, they have been insisted that she should execute a bond, agreeing to repay any liability that may be found against her. The learned counsel asserts that the petitioner had no liability fixed against her until the date of her retirement, but concedes that a couple of weeks before she superannuated, she was served with a memo of charges, dated 05.03.2020, asking to show-cause why disciplinary action should not be initiated against her, allegedly for having adjusted amounts into certain loan accounts, without proper authorization. 3. The petitioner says that the allegations in the charge memo are completely untenable and that, in any event of the matter, once his client had retired from the services of the first respondent on 31.03.2020, in the absence of specific provisions in the applicable Rules and Regulations permitting continuation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement, all proceedings pursuant thereto would have to be legally ceased. 4. The petitioner thus contends that demand of the first respondent in requiring that she execute an indemnity bond before her retiral benefits are released, is untenable and illegal. Sri.P.Haridas, therefore, prays that this writ petition be allowed as prayed for. 5. In response to the afore submissions of Sri.P.Haridas, the learned counsel for the KFC – Smt.Dhanya P. Asokan, submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court without any purpose because, as is evident from Ext.P10, her client has never informed the petitioner that her retirement benefits will not be paid, but only that she will have to execute an indemnity bond agreeing that the employer’s contribution towards Provident Fund will be withheld till completion of disciplinary proceedings against her. She submitted that the 1st respondent-KFC is authorised to do so in view of Ext.R1(a) Minutes of its Board, whereunder, all employees, against whom disciplinary action is pending, are required to execute an indemnity bond without collateral security pending such enquiry. She, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed and offered that petitioner will be paid her entire retirement benefits if she is willing to execute an indemnity bond in terms of Ext.R1(a). 6. I have considered the afore rival submissions very carefully and have also gone through the materials and documents available on record. 7. Though I do not propose to go in detail into the allegations made against the petitioner by the 1st respondent, prima facie, it appears that she has been alleged to have made certain adjustments in the loan account of a particular company unauthorisedly. Whether this amounts to misconduct or otherwise is not something that this Court is called upon to consider at this stage. 8. However, the specific allegation of the petitioner is that since she retired on 31.03.2020, no disciplinary action can be continued against her, based on a charge sheet issued on 05.03.2020, since the Rules and Regulations applicable to the 1st respondent do not permit any such continuation. This submission has some force because it is now well settled, through a catena of judgments of this Court and that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that it is only in cases where there are statutory provisions permitting continuation of enquiry, can it be done after an employee retires. That said, I do not propose to speak on this affirmatively either, since this is a matter which will have to be decided by the KFC appropriately as and when they intend to take the disciplinary action forward against the petitioner. 9. As far as this case is concerned, the only question is whether the petitioner is required to execute an indemnity bond and to forgo the employer’s contribution towards Provident Fund until the disciplinary action is completed against her. 10. On this issue I find force in the submissions of Sri.P.Haridas, learned counsel for the petitioner, because for one, I am not sure if any disciplinary enquiry can continue against the petitioner after her retirement; and for the second, Ext.R1(a) only mentions about an indemnity bond but does not speak about withholding of the employer’s contribution. 10. On this issue I find force in the submissions of Sri.P.Haridas, learned counsel for the petitioner, because for one, I am not sure if any disciplinary enquiry can continue against the petitioner after her retirement; and for the second, Ext.R1(a) only mentions about an indemnity bond but does not speak about withholding of the employer’s contribution. To that extent the impugned orders are in error. 11. Coming to the question of execution of indemnity bond, I fail to understand why the 1st respondent should now insist on the same since it would be nothing but an empty formality, because the said bond only provides that the petitioner should repay all liabilities that may be found against her in future. However, since she is now no longer in service, obviously, any such recovery can be made only as per the mandate of law and through the jurisdictional assistance of the competent Court/Forum. 12. I cannot, therefore, see insistence of the indemnity bond to have any legal worth, except that in Ext.R1(a), the Board of Directors of the KFC has mentioned it as one of the conditions for release of retirement benefits of employees against whom disciplinary action is pending. In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the 1st respondent-KFC to release the entire retirement benefits to the petitioner; however, leaving them full liberty to initiate any legally mandated and sanctioned procedure for recovery of any liability that may be found against her; for which purpose, I leave open all contentions and make it clear that my observations in this judgment will not fetter such right of theirs in any manner whatsoever. The retirement benefits as ordered above shall be released to the petitioner as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. After I dictated this judgment, Sri.P.Haridas - learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client has also sought interest for the delay in payment of her retirement benefits and prayed that this Court order the same. After I dictated this judgment, Sri.P.Haridas - learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client has also sought interest for the delay in payment of her retirement benefits and prayed that this Court order the same. However, I am of the view that it will not be justified for this Court to consider this aspect on its merits, since, if I am to decide whether any interest is to be paid to the petitioner, I will have to make assessment of various materials and documents in the factual realm, which this Court is proscribed from doing, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I, therefore, leave open all contentions to be pursued by the petitioner appropriately before a competent Court, if she is so interested in future.