A. Rajendra Panicker v. Kerala State Warehousing Corporation

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/11TH ASWINA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 38742 of 2015 (P)** **------------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S) :** **-------------------------** **A. RAJENDRA PANICKER, S/O. APPUKUTTAN NAIR, AGED 56 YEARS, "ARAVIND", NORTH JANATHA ROAD, NJRA 130, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, (EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION)** **BY SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADVS. SMT.P.R.REENA SRI.M.V.ANANDAN** **RESPONDENT(S) :** - **----------------------------** **1. KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, PB.NO. 1727, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** **2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, PB.NO.1727, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 016.** **3. G. MOHANDAS, CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, PB. NO. 1727, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 016.** **BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. ## **WP(C).No. 38742 of 2015 (P)** ## **-----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :** - **EXHIBIT P1 THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 28326/2004 DATED 11-08-2005 AND CONNECTED CASES** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18-12-2013 OF VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22-08-2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30-10-2014 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT CORPORATION.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26-09-2003 OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OF 1ST RESPONDENT CORPORATION** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05-05-2007 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TO ADV. MAJNU KOMAT, STANDING COUNSEL.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL OPINION DATED 09-05-2007 ISSUED IN RESPONSE WITH EXHIBIT P6.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07-05-2007 OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR.** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MONITORING COMMITTEE DATED 10-05-2007.** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE AGENDA NOTE DATED 16-06-2007.** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 05-06-2007 OF IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE APPROVED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ON 07-06-2007.** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30-08-2007 OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR.** - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(RT) 376/07/AD DATED 15-03-2007.** - **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE DATED 28-03-2007.** - **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(RT) NO.510/07/AD DATED 28-03-2007.** - **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 22-08-2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** ## **WP(C).No. 38742 of 2015 (P)** **----------------------------------------EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 26-08-2015.** **EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 09-12-2015.** **EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.05.2016 ISSUE BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 02.04.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P21 COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NOTES ATTACHED TO AND FORMING PART OF PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2010. EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE AGENDA NOTES PREPARED FOR PLACING BEFORE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.** **EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR ORDERS REGARDING THE RELEASE OF SECURITY DEPOSIT.** **EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE THEN MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE CORPORATION TO THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DATED 14.05.2004.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :** **EXHIBIT R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KSWC/CONSTRUCTION/ RICE MILL/2007-2008 DATED 16.04.2007.** **EXHIBIT R1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KSWC/00/2007-2008 DATED 25.05.2007. EXHIBIT R1(C): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2007. EXHIBIT R1(C)(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ANNEXURE GUIDELINES UNDER THE ORDER.** **EXHIBIT R1(D): TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA FINANCIAL CODE CONTAINING RELEVANT PROVISION. EXHIBIT R1(E): TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATION. EXHIBIT R1(F): TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT OF MODERN RICE MILL, ALATHUR. EXHIBIT R1(G): TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS TAKEN AGAINST THE PETITIONER BETWEEN THE PERIOD FROM 1984 TO 2006.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE.** Msd. ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ================== ## W.P.(C).No. 38742 of 2015 ================== Dated this the 3[rd] day of October, 2016 ## J U D G M E N T The prayers in this Writ Petition are as follows: - “i. Call for records leading to Ext.P-16 and P-18 and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Ext.P-16 and P-18. - ii. issue such other orders, writs or directions as are deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court. - iii. award cost of this proceedings to the petitioner.' 2. Heard Smt.Surya Binoy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.A.N.Rajan Babu, learned Standing Counsel, who has entered appearance for official respondents 1 and 2 as well as contesting respondent No.3. 3. It is not in dispute that the impugned Ext.P-16 is only a show cause memo dated 22.8.2015 issued by the 2[nd] respondent against the petitioner, which culminated in Ext.P-18 memo of charges dated 9.12.2015. In view of the subsequent developments, the essential challenge is against the impugned Ext.P-18 memo of charges dated 9.12.2015. The charges raised in the impugned Ext.P-18 are as follows: W.P.(C).38742/15 - : 2 :- - “1. Failed to obtain Board/Government sanction for the renewal of agreement which was made after a lapse of 7 years by giving 65% enhancement to M/s.Mill More Engineers for machineries as per agreement No.3/2007-08 dated 4.06.2007. 2. Without getting Board/Government sanction, 39% enhancement was allowed to M/S.Thermax Ltd. as per agreement No.7/2007-08 dated 14.08.2007, when the agreement between the corporation and Thermax became invalid. 3. Without getting Board/Government sanction 120% enhancement for the balance electrical works was allowed to M/S Neocon Engineers for restarting of Modern Rice Mill at Alathur as per agreement No.8/2007-08 dated 22.08.2007. 4. Since the overall charge of Modern Rice Mills was entrusted with you vide office order No.KSWC/OO/08-09 dated 01.07.2008, you failed to obtain necessary ratification for the enhancement given in item No.1, 2, 3 from the Board/ Government. 5. Failed to obtain Board/Government sanction for diverting Government fund allotted for the construction Thakazhi mill to Alathur mill. 6. Failed to observe usual procedures while closing the mill. Being the responsible officer failed to carry out preventive maintenance before closing down the mill on 8.06.2010. 7. Negligence, indolence and dereliction of duty by doing the aforesaid act in (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) & (6). 8. Breach to fidelity as contemplated in section 36 of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962 by doing the aforesaid act in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6. 9. Acted detrimental to the interest of the Corporation and in conflict with its instruction by doing the aforesaid act in (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) & (6).” 4. The petitioner has urged various grounds in support of the prayers sought by him. The first contention is that due to previous inimical relationship, contesting respondent No.3 in his W.P.(C).38742/15 - : 3 :- former capacity as the Chairman of the company has issued the impugned proceedings out of malafide considerations and that therefore the said impugned proceedings are tainted by factual malafides. (It is pointed out that the 3[rd] respondent has demitted office as Chairman of the company after 31.5.2016). In support of the above contention, the petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court at Ext.P-1, in which the petitioner herein was the petitioner therein and contesting respondent No.3 herein was contesting respondent No.2 therein and that this Court has clearly found in para 138 that the impugned proceedings therein are tainted by mala fides on the part of the 2[nd] respondent therein and states that the said judgment at Ext.P-1 therein has been affirmed by the Division Bench in the judgment dated 16[th] December, 2005 in W.A.No. 1879/2005. The second ground is that all the allegations except one, as raised in Ext.P-18, are related to the year 2007 or 2008 and the other allegation concerned is in respect of the year 2010 and that the impugned proceedings have been initiated on those allegations for the first time only as late as in August 2015, as per Ext.P-16, which has culminated in Ext.P-18 issued as late as on 9.12.2015, and that the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside by this Court on the ground of inordinate delay and unexplained delay. The third ground is that the petitioner has W.P.(C).38742/15 - : 4 :- already retired from the service on attaining the prescribed superannuation age of 58 on 31.5.2016 and that though Ext.P-19 order dated 17.5.2016 has been issued by the 1[st] respondent to extend the service, the same has been served to the petitioner purportedly for continuing the disciplinary proceedings after his retirement and that the same has been issued without prior sanction of the State Government as mandated in Regulation 13 of the statutory regulations framed for the respondent Corporation referred to as “General & Staff Regulations 1963” and therefore the impugned proceedings cannot in any view of the matter be allowed to continue as there is no employer-employee relationship as between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation and as no previous permission of the State Government has been obtained in that regard, etc. The fourth ground is regarding the unsustainability of the impugned action, on the merits of the matter. 5. As regards the first ground urged by the petitioner, it is to be noted that though a common counter affidavit has been filed for all the 3 respondents, the specific allegation of mala fides raised as against contesting respondent No.3 has not been rebutted with precision and clarity in the pleadings in the counter affidavit. The said counter affidavit proceeds on the premise as if there are other W.P.(C).38742/15 - : 5 :- material circumstances to justify the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioner as no prior technical study was conducted by the Implementation Committee consisting of the petitioner before increasing the amount covered by the extended contract beyond 15 percent and further that the audit report also discloses that the action of the Implementation Committee, in which the petitioner was a member, was done without the permission of the Government or the Board of Directors. But it can be seen from a mere perusal of the said counter affidavit that the entire attempt in that affidavit is to justify the impugned action taken by official respondents 1 and 2 in their official capacity and that the specific allegation of mala fides as raised against the contesting respondent No.3 has not been effectively rebutted with clarity and precision. That apart, it is to be noted that the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.3 was on bad terms on many previous occasions, when the 3[rd] respondent was the Managing Director or Chairman of the company. Four Writ Petitions were earlier preferred by the petitioner in relation to his various grievances in the service in which the 3[rd] respondent herein was impleaded in his private capacity and the petitioner had made serious allegations of mala fides as against W.P.(C).38742/15 - : 6 :- him. This Court, in Ext.P-1 common judgment rendered on 11.8.2015 has clearly found in paragraph 138 that the impugned action taken by the 2[nd] respondent therein was vitiated by bad faith and mala fides, etc. The matter was taken up in appeal in W.A.Nos.1779, 1879, 1880 and 1914 of 2005, in which the Division Bench had rendered a common judgment on 16.12.2005, wherein it was found in para 32 as follows: “32. After going through the entire facts of the four cases we are convinced that this is a case of harassment and victimization of an employee by the second respondent. That is evident from the fact that very trivial matters are taken in for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings. Some cases are dropped after getting reply while others are pursued. Except in the case of a non-submitting of property statement the other 2 cases are in continuation of the first case. This is a case where the employee has been put to disciplinary proceedings without any valid reason as is evident from the judgment of the learned Single Judge and from the discussion of the cases of this judgment.” 6. On an appreciation of the various attendant circumstances of this case and also the fact that there has been very grave and inordinate delay on the part of the respondents in initiating Ext.P-18 proceedings and in the light of the conclusive findings made by this Court in Ext.P-1 as well as in writ appellate common judgment dated 16.12.2005, the petitioner has made out a strong prima facie case of mala fides as against the 3[rd] respondent in the issuance of the impugned proceedings. However, in the light W.P.(C).38742/15 - : 7 :- of the view that is proposed to be taken by this Court in the disposal of this matter, there is no necessity for this Court to render any final opinion on this aspect of the matter, as there are other sufficient grounds to interfere with the impugned proceedings. 7. As stated earlier, all the allegations except one as raised in Ext.P-18, are in relation to the year 2007 or 2008 and the other remaining allegation is in respect of the year 2010. The show cause memo as per Ext.P-16 has been issued in respect of these allegations as late as on 22.8.2015 and that this has led to the issuance of the impugned Ext.P-18 memo of charges as late as on 19.12.2015. The pertinent question to be decided is whether there has been any inordinate delay on the part of official respondents 1 and 2 in the issuing the impugned Ext.P-18 proceedings. 8. A issue of this nature was considered by the Apex Court in the ruling in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh, reported in (1990) Supp. SCC 738, wherein an Original Application was filed by the officer concerned before the CAT against the initiation of the departmental inquiry proceedings and the issue of the charge sheet on 22.4.1987 in respect of certain incidents that happened in 1975- W.P.(C).38742/15 - : 8 :- 76. The CAT had quashed the impugned charge memo and departmental enquiry on the ground of inordinate delay in the initiation of the departmental proceedings with reference to the incident alleged in the charge memo. The matter was taken up in appeal before the Apex Court on the ground that the Tribunal should not have quashed the impugned proceedings merely on the ground of delay and laches and should have allowed the enquiry to go on so as to decide the matter on merits. The Apex Court rejected the said contention made on behalf of the authority concerned in the aforestated ruling in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh, reported in (1990) Supp. SCC 738. The Apex Court has held as follows in (1990) Supp. SCC 738, p.740, para 4: “The irregularities which were the subject-matter of the enquiry are said to have taken place between the years 1975-77. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in April 1977 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any case there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal’s orders and accordingly we dismiss this appeal.” ## 9. Still further in the case State of Andhra Pradesh v. ## N.Radhakrishnan, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 154, the Apex Court W.P.(C).38742/15 - : 9 :- dealt with a case where the respondent was appointed as Assistant Director of Town Planning in the year 1976 and a report dated 7.11.1987 was sent by the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Andhra Pradesh, to the Secretary to Government about alleged irregularities in deviations and unauthorised constructions in multi storied complexes in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad in alleged collusion with Municipal Authorities. On the basis of the said report, the State Government had issued memos on 12.12.1987 in respect of three officials including the said respondent, one Sri.Radhakrishan, who was then the Assistant City Planner. In that case till 31.7.1995, the articles of charges had not been served on the respondent therein and the Tribunal held that the memo dated 31-7-1995 related to incidents that happened ten years or more prior to the date of the memo and that there was absolutely no explanation by the State Government for this long and inordinate delay in framing the charges and conducting the enquiry against the respondent therein and that there was no justification on the part of the State Government so as to proceed with the conduct of disciplinary inquiry against the said officer in respect of those incidents at this late stage. Accordingly, the Apex Court held W.P.(C).38742/15 - : 10 :- ## in (1998) 4 SCC 154, p.165, para 19 as follows: “19. It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations.” Therein it was held by the Supreme Court that there was hardly any explanation worth consideration as to why the delay occurred and in those circumstances, the Apex Court held that the Tribunal was justified in quashing the impugned charge memo dated 31-7-1995 and directing the State Government to promote the respondent as per recommendation of the DPC ignoring the impugned memos W.P.(C).38742/15 - : 11 :- dated 27-10-1995 and 1-6-1996 and on those terms, the appeal filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh was dismissed. In the case P.V.Mahadeven v. M.D. T.N.Housing Board, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636, the Apex Court dealt therein with a case where certain disciplinary actions were initiated against the appellant therein, who was working as Superintending Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and charge memo was issued against the employee in the year 2000 for alleged irregularity in issuing a sale deed in 1990. The appellant therein preferred a Writ Petition for quashing the said charge memo and for restraining the respondent employer from proceeding with the matter. The appellant therein contended that though the records were very much available with the respondent, no disciplinary action had been taken against him for about long 10 years and no explanation whatsoever was offered by the respondent for the inordinate delay in initiating the disciplinary action. The Apex Court in the aforestated P.V.Mahadevan's case supra noted that the officer concerned was alleged to have committed irregularity as early as in the year 1990, for which the impugned disciplinary action by the appellant only in the year 2000, though the audit report was issued in the second half of 1994-95. It was W.P.(C).38742/15 - : 12 :- noted that Sec.118 of the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act, 1961 specifically mandated for submission of abstracts of the accounts at the end of every year and Sec.119 thereof related to the annual audit of the accounts. Therefor, it was held that the explanation offered for the delay in finalising the audit account cannot stand scrutiny and that there is no acceptable explanation offered on the side of the respondent employee in order to justify the long and inordinate delay in initiating the impugned departmental disciplinary proceedings. Under those circumstances, it was held that allowing the employer to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at that distance of time will be highly prejudicial to the appellant employee and that it was held that keeping a higher Governmental official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. It was held in para 11 of P.V.Mahadevan's case supra as follows: “11. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring W.P.(C).38742/15 - : 13 :- confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer.” 10. In the instant case also it is to be noted that almost all the allegations except one, are said to have taken place as early as in the 2007 or 2008 and the remaining allegation is in respect of the year 2010. True that Ext.R-1(f) audit report is seen issued only on 27.4.2015. But it has been pointed out by the petitioner that there was an audit report in respect of the very same period in question which was issued in the year 2010. Sub section (1) and sub section (10) of Sec.31 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962, on the basis on which the respondent Corporation has been constituted, read as follows: "Sec.31(1) Every Warehousing Corporation shall maintain proper accounts and other relevant records and prepare an annual statement of accounts including the profit and loss account and the balance sheet in such form as may be prescribed: Provided that, in the case of the Central Warehousing Corporation, the accounts relating to the Warehousing Fund and the General Fund shall be maintained separately. xxx xxx xxx Sec.31(10).The annual accounts of a Warehousing Corporation together with the audit report thereon shall be placed before the annual general meeting of the Corporation within six months of the close of the financial year.” W.P.(C).38742/15 - : 14 :- 11. Therefore, the facts in this case are almost similar to that in P.V.Mahadevan's case supra in relation to the provisions of the Act in Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act, 1961. Therefore, the belated issuance of a second audit report as per Ext.R1(f) on 27.4.2015, cannot be of any valid excuse for the respondent employer to justify the long delay in initiating action on the allegations in respect of incidents which have happened as early as in 2007 or 2008 or 2010 as the case may be. No proper explanation or justification has been offered in the counter affidavit of respondents 1 and 2 in respect of the inordinate delay and therefore it is only to be held that there have been long and inordinate delay in the matter, which vitiates the issuance of the impugned Ext.P-18 proceedings. In this view of the matter the impugned Ext.P-18 proceedings are liable to be quashed by this Court on that ground and it so accordingly ordered. 12. In the instant case, it is common ground that though earlier the prescribed superannuation age for employee like the petitioner was 55, the same was later enhanced to 58 years. The petitioner attained the age of 58 in May, 2016 and going by the provisions of Regulation 13 [which is the statutory provisions W.P.(C).38742/15 - : 15 :- framed under the enabling provisions of Sec.42(1) of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962] the petitioner was to retire on superannuation on 31.5.2016. The present Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner on 18.12.2015. This Court had earlier issued interim stay order against the continuance of the impugned disciplinary proceedings on 22.12.2015, which was extended until further orders as per order dated 21.1.2016. However, the respondent employer had issued Ext.P-19 proceedings on 17.5.2016 ordering that the petitioner's service will stand extended beyond 31.5.2016 in order to continue the impugned disciplinary proceedings. In the light of Ext.P-19, this Court had vacated the interim stay order passed on 27.5.2016 and making it clear that the impugned disciplinary proceedings can continue subject to the result of the Writ Petition. 13. It is common ground that the petitioner was permitted to retire from service by the respondent employer on 31.5.2016 itself and that Ext.P-19 has not been invoked so as to continue the impugned disciplinary proceedings at Ext.P-18. The crucial aspect of the matter is that the proviso to Regulation 13 of the General & Staff Regulations, l963 of the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation W.P.(C).38742/15 - : 16 :- clearly mandates that “ _the Board of Directors may with the previous permission of the Govt. in the interest of the corporation, extend the period of service of an employee beyond the age of superannuation for such period as may be considered necessary but not exceeding three years, provided further that nothing in this Regulation shall be to affect the powers of the Corporation to employee any person, above the age of 55 years on contract_ ”. Therefore, proceedings like Ext.P-19 would have been issued validly only with the prior permission of the State Government. It is indeed fairly admitted by respondents 1 and 2 that no prior permission of the State Government has been obtained at any point of time for continuing the impugned disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Therefore, the employer-employee relationship as between the petitioner employee and the respondent employer has come to total cessation as on 31.5.2016 and the jural relationship of employer-employee as between the petitioner and respondents 1 & 2 has totally ceased to exist. On this sole ground alone, no further disciplinary proceedings could be validly continued against the petitioner after 31.5.2016. 14. In the ruling in Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C., & Ors. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 666, the Apex Court has W.P.(C).38742/15 - : 17 :- clearly held that on the retirement of the employee, the disciplinary proceedings would have elapsed in the absence of any specific enabling provision in the rules for its continuation after retirement and that the respondent Corporation cannot continue the same even for the purpose of recovery from the provident fund or retirement benefits of the employee. It was held in paras 6 and 7 of Bhagirathi Jena's case supra as follows: “6. It will be noticed from the abovesaid regulations that no specific provision was made for deducting any amount from the provident fund consequent to any misconduct determined in the departmental enquiry nor was any provision made for continuance of the departmental enquiry after superannuation. 7. In view of the absence of such a provision in the abovesaid regulations, it must be held that the Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral benefits of the appellant. There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the appellant and nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. Once the appellant had retired from service on 30-6-1995, there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement.” 15. In the light of these aspects, the Apex Court allowed the appeal of the employee therein and further directed that the respondent employer therein to pay arrears of salary and allowances payable to the employee during the period of suspension upto the date of superannuation after deducting the suspension allowance W.P.(C).38742/15 - : 18 :- paid to him for the period and also to pay to the appellant therein all the retiral benefits otherwise payable to him in accordance with the rules and regulations applicable, as if there has been no disciplinary proceedings or order passed therein. In this case, Sri.A.N.Rajan Babu, learned Standing Counsel appearing for official respondents 1 and 2 has fairly submitted that the only enabling provision in the matter is the one under Regulation 13, which is circumscribed specifically by the mandate of the proviso thereto and that the prior permission of the Government was never obtained at any point of time for the continuance of Ext.P-18 disciplinary proceedings. To a specific question posed by this Court as to whether there are any enabling provision in the Staff Regulations of the Warehousing Corporation, which is pari materia or similar to Rule 3 Part III KSR or Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in the matter of continuing disciplinary proceedings against an employee after his retirement in respect of charges already framed before his retirement, Sri.A.N.Rajan Babu, learned Standing Counsel appearing for official respondent Warehousing Corporation fairly submitted that there are no such rules and the only rule which governs the field in a fact situation like this, is one under Regulation 13 with the W.P.(C).38742/15 - : 19 :- proviso thereto as indicated above herein. Therefore, it is only to be held that on and with effect from 1.6.2016, no disciplinary proceedings could be validly and lawfully continued against the petitioner employee and on this ground alone, the impugned disciplinary proceedings are liable to be set aside and quashed and it is accordingly so ordered. In the above circumstances, it is only to he held that there is no necessity to quash the impugned Ext.P-16 show cause memo, as the same has been overtaken by the subsequent developments, which led to the issuance of the impugned Ext.P-18 memo of charges. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned disciplinary proceedings on the basis of the impugned Ext.P-18 memo of charges are liable to be quashed as it cannot be continued any further. In this view of the matter, the impugned Ext.P-18 memo of charges dated 9.12.2015 is quashed and all further proceedings taken in pursuance thereof, including Ext.P-19 will stand quashed. Respondents 1 and 2 will sanction and disburse all terminal/ retiral benefits admissible to the petitioner as per law within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. It is also made clear that if any other benefits like regularisation of suspension period, pay and allowances, etc. have also W.P.(C).38742/15 - : 20 :- been withheld on the basis of the impugned disciplinary proceedings, it will be open to the petitioner to file a representation in that regard before respondents 1 and 2, upon which, respondents 1 and 2 will consider the same in the light of the observations in this judgment and take necessary action within the aforestated period of two months. With these observations and directions, the aforecaptioned Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of. sdk+ Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True Copy/// P.S. to Judge