Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 567 (KER)

Z. A. AZIF v. STATE OF KERALA

2025-03-12

N.NAGARESH

body2025
JUDGMENT : The petitioner, who is the former Principal of the College managed by the 4 th respondent, has filed this writ petition seeking to command the respondents to sanction and disburse the terminal benefits due to the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks to declare that he is entitled to interest at the rate of 8% for the delayed payment of terminal benefits. 2. The petitioner states that while working as Principal of the College, he was proceeded with disciplinary action and kept under suspension from 30.08.2016. The Equiry Officer submitted a report finding the petitioner guilty. The petitioner challenged the enquiry report by filing W.P.(C) No.22680/2018. This Court allowed the said writ petition setting aside the enquiry report. 3. As this Court had directed a de novo enquiry, a notice was served on the petitioner proposing to impose punishment of reversion to a lower post. This proposal was made, according to the petitioner, without conducting any de novo enquiry. Therefore, the petitioner challenged the show-cause notice. This Court allowed W.P.(C) No.5136 of 2021 quashing the notice but giving liberty to the Manager to proceed afresh in accordance with law. 4. The petitioner submits that in the meanwhile, the petitioner retired from service on superannuation with effect from 31.05.2022. The respondents, however, did not pay the terminal benefits due to the petitioner. It was in such circumstances that the petitioner filed this writ petition. 5. In the meanwhile, the College authorities passed Ext.P2 order on 25.07.2022. The Management was not inclined to proceed further with the disciplinary action since the petitioner had retired on 31.05.2022. The Management, therefore, resolved to absolve the petitioner of the only remaining charge No.7 and to drop all disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The Management also decided to treat the entire period of suspension as duty in accordance with the rules and regulations for all practical purposes. 6. In this writ petition, this Court passed an interim order on 20.06.2023 and consequently, the petitioner has been paid provisional pension. The office of the Accountant General (A&E), Kerala issued Ext.P8 pension payment order dated 18.08.2023. In the said pension payment order, the period from 11.09.1995 to 05.10.1995 and the period from 05.08.2016 to 31.05.2022 were treated as period of service not qualifying for pension. 7. The office of the Accountant General (A&E), Kerala issued Ext.P8 pension payment order dated 18.08.2023. In the said pension payment order, the period from 11.09.1995 to 05.10.1995 and the period from 05.08.2016 to 31.05.2022 were treated as period of service not qualifying for pension. 7. The petitioner states that though the petitioner had more than 25 years of service, the additional 5 th respondent has taken into account only 20 years, 10 months and 29 days as qualifying service for the purpose of computation of pension and has ignored more than 5 years of service of the petitioner during which the petitioner was put under suspension. 8. The petitioner submits that placing the petitioner under suspension was totally unwarranted and the petitioner was illegally kept out of duty. Since the petitioner was put under suspension, he could not discharge his duties during this 5 year period. However, for the purpose of service and computation of pension, the entire service of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment till 31.05.2022, his date of retirement of superannuation, has to be calculated taking into consideration the fact that the Management has treated the entire period of suspension as duty for all purposes. 9. The 1 st respondent entered appearance through Government Pleader and resisted the writ petition. The 1 st respondent submitted that by judgment dated 30.05.2022 in WP(C)No.5136/2021, this Court directed the Manager to refer Charge No.7 to the enquiry officer and to conclude the enquiry after affording an opportunity of being heard. But, the Manager did not comply with the direction and simply concluded the disciplinary proceedings stating that they are not inclined to proceed further with the disciplinary action and resolved to absolve him of Charge No.7 and to drop all disciplinary proceedings against him. Such an action was taken on the ground that the petitioner had already completed the age of retirement. It was not a genuine enquiry proceedings. It was quite irregular. The Management committed irregular course of actions. They have deviated from all enquiry procedures. 10. Even though the petitioner was suspended from service in 2016, they have not reviewed the action every six months. This reviewing of suspension is a regular procedure which safeguards the interests of all. So, it reveals that the Management has committed serious lapses by not reviewing the suspension periodically. They have deviated from all enquiry procedures. 10. Even though the petitioner was suspended from service in 2016, they have not reviewed the action every six months. This reviewing of suspension is a regular procedure which safeguards the interests of all. So, it reveals that the Management has committed serious lapses by not reviewing the suspension periodically. The Management has concluded the disciplinary proceedings simply on the ground that the petitioner had already retired from service on 31.05.2022. It was not a genuine ground to conclude a disciplinary proceeding. The Management should have taken action on the basis of evidences and findings. So, there occurred serious lapses on the side of the Management in conducting and concluding the disciplinary proceedings. 11. The 2 nd respondent also filed a counter affidavit. The 2 nd respondent submitted that the enquiry conducted by the Manager was irregular. The Management committed irregular course of action. They have deviated from all enquiry procedure. The period from 30.08.2016 to 31.05.2022 was not taken as qualifying service, as the dispute on the genuineness of the enquiry proceedings is existing. The 2 nd respondent has sought for the opinion of the Government in reckoning the above period as qualifying service. On receipt of advice from the Government, follow up action will be pursued by the respondent. The 2 nd respondent also submitted that the Departmental Non Liability Certificate in respect of the petitioner was also sent to the Sub Treasury Officer. 12. The 4 th respondent in his counter affidavit submitted that though the Management earnestly initiated disciplinary proceedings, the enquiry report was set aside. Subsequently, the Management imposed penalty of reversion. The said penalty was also set aside by this Court permitting de novo enquiry by the Management. However, the Management later took into consideration the fact that the petitioner was under suspension for a period of 5 years and the petitioner has since been retired from service on superannuation, decided not to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry. The period of suspension of the petitioner was also regularised as per rules. Orders were forwarded to the Department regularising the period of suspension and treating the said period as duty. 13. The period of suspension of the petitioner was also regularised as per rules. Orders were forwarded to the Department regularising the period of suspension and treating the said period as duty. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3 and additional 5 th respondent and the learned Senior Counsel assisted by the counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent. 14. The petitioner was suspended from service on 30.08.2016 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. The enquiry report was challenged in W.P.(C) No.22680/2018. This Court found that except for one charge, all other charges are not established and regarding the one charge, this Court set aside the findings and directed to conduct a de novo enquiry. The Management continued the proceedings. The petitioner would submit that penalty of reversion was imposed on the petitioner without conducting any further enquiry. The order of reversion was challenged by the petitioner filing W.P.(C) No.5136/2021. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court as per Ext.P1 judgment. In Ext.P1 judgment, this Court directed the respondents to refer charge No.7 to the Enquiry Officer, who shall conduct the enquiry after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and also to produce documents. It was directed that the respondents shall ensure that the disciplinary action is concluded within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Ext.P1 judgment is dated 30.05.2022. 15. The Management held a meeting of the Director Board on 12.07.2022. The Director Board examined the matter and decided that since the petitioner retired on 31.05.2022, the disciplinary action need not be carried further. Accordingly, the petitioner was absolved from charge No.7. The disciplinary proceedings were dropped and the period of suspension of the petitioner was treated as duty for all practical purposes. 16. The Government Pleader would submit that the 4 th respondent was not justified in dropping the proceedings when this Court directed the Management to conduct enquiry on charge No.7. 17. I find that the said direction was given in a writ petition filed by the petitioner, in which the petitioner had challenged the penalty of reversion imposed on him. The Director Board of the Management met on 12.07.2022 and examined the matter in all its aspects and found that it is not desirable to proceed with the enquiry. 17. I find that the said direction was given in a writ petition filed by the petitioner, in which the petitioner had challenged the penalty of reversion imposed on him. The Director Board of the Management met on 12.07.2022 and examined the matter in all its aspects and found that it is not desirable to proceed with the enquiry. Analysing the factual situation, I find that the Management cannot be prima facie blamed for dropping the proceedings. The petitioner who was the Principal of the College was kept under suspension on 30.08.2016. Out of the 7 charges levelled against the petitioner, 6 charges were found to be unsustainable and not maintainable, by this Court. This Court had directed to limit the enquiry to only one charge. The petitioner remained under suspension for almost 5 years and while under suspension, retired on superannuation on 31.05.2022. It is in such circumstances that the Management has decided to drop the proceedings against the petitioner. Taking into consideration all the afore facts, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in Ext.P2 decision taken by the Management. 18. The petitioner was willing to work as Principal. But, the petitioner was not permitted to work as Principal, on the basis of suspension and the contemplated disciplinary proceedings. This Court found that out of the 7 charges, 6 charges are unsustainable. Ultimately, the disciplinary proceedings were dropped. 19. In the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it would be highly illegal and unjustified to deny the petitioner's service benefits, for the period during which the petitioner was kept under suspension. The writ petition is therefore allowed. Respondents 2 and 3 and additional 5 th respondent are directed to sanction and disburse the terminal benefits due to the petitioner taking into account the period of suspension of the petitioner from 30.08.2016 to 31.05.2022 as duty. Needless to say, the petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits, including benefit of pay revision and arrears of pay for the period during which the petitioner was kept under suspension.