K.P. Raveenran vs The Deputy Director of Education and The Assistant Educational Officer

C.T. Ravi Kumar, J.—The petitioner retired as Headmaster from Mayyannur Central Mappila U.P. School, on 30.4.2013. It is the delay in the matter of disbursement of the retiral benefits that constrained the petitioner to file the captioned writ petition. While the petitioner contends that there is absolutely no reason for withholding the said benefits, the respondents refute the same. In the statement filed by the second respondent, it is stated that earlier the first respondent issued directions to the manager of the school to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner invoking the power u/s 12A(1) of the Kerala Education Act. The contention of the petitioner is that such a direction was given to the manager only after the retirement of the petitioner on superannuation on 30.4.2013. In paragraph 5 of the statement filed by the second respondent, it is stated that the first respondent as per letter No. B3/4518/13 dated 30.4.2013 directed the second respondent to continue the disciplinary action against the petitioner in terms of Rule 3 of Part II of the Kerala Service Rules. The tenor of the contentions in the statement would reveal that the respondents are of the view that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner could be continued despite his retirement. Considering the fact the petitioner has already retired from service as early as on 30.4.2013, there cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that no departmental proceedings could be continued for imposing penalty on the petitioner. The scope of its continuation is very limited. Now, the petitioner is outside the disciplinary jurisdiction of the respondents. True that if any loss has been sustained on account of the action/inaction on the part of the petitioner it could be continued subject to the relevant provisions by adhering to the prescribed procedures and a liability could be fastened on the petitioner, in accordance with law. The learned Government pleader submitted that in the audit it was found that a loss to the tune of Rs. 1,54,135 has been sustained and the said amount is proposed to be fastened as liability on the petitioner in accordance with law. A copy of the audit was forwarded to the Headmaster for the purpose of forwarding the same to the petitioner to enable him to give explanation therefor. Since those proceedings are not under challenge in this writ petition I do not think it necessary to go into the legality of such an action in this proceedings. The question whether liability can be fastened in the circumstances against the petitioner is a matter to be considered in appropriate proceedings in case the petitioner is ultimately fastened with any liability at later point of time. At the same time, it is evident that even according to the respondents only an amount of Rs. 154135 could be fastened as liability to the petitioner, if at all it could be fixed as liability, against the petitioner. Evidently, the DCRG payable to the petitioner is much more than the said amount. Obviously, the petitioner is also claiming certain other retiral benefits and amount towards arrears of 2009 pay revision. In such circumstances, I am of the view that pendency of any such proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall not be a reason for non-disbursement of the amount less the aforementioned amount of Rs. 154135. In such circumstances, without making any observation as to the legality or otherwise of the proceedings presently initiated for fixing the liability to the tune of Rs. 154135 against the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay the DCRG less the amount of Rs. 154135 and other retiral benefits legally payable to the petitioner expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There will be a further direction to the respondents to pay the arrears of 2009 pay revision as has been sanctioned as per Ext.P5, within the above stipulated period. The respondents shall also work out the benefits, if any, payable to the petitioner towards his claim for 28 years grade, terminal surrender benefits, revised D.A. etc. within the said period. If ultimately the petitioner is found entitled to the aforesaid benefits, the amount payable to the petitioner on that account shall be disbursed within a further period of two months.