KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. v. THE STATE OF KERALA, PRADEEP KUMAR, AND THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 20TH BHADRA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.18593 OF 2020(Y)** ## **PETITIONER:** **THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., CO-BANK TOWERS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.** |||**BY ADV. SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA**| |---|---|---| |**RESPONDENTS**<br>**:**||| |**1**||**THE STATE OF KERALA**| |||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,**| |||**KERALA CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT,**| |||**SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.**| |**2**||**PRADEEP KUMAR**| |||**S/O.MADHAVAN, TC 11/1706, LEKSHMI PRABHA,**| |||**PAROTTUKONAM, NALANCHIRA P.O.,**| |||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 015.**| |**3**||**THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA**| |||**REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,**| |||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.**| |||**BY SRI.V. TEKCHAND, SR GP FOR R1**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.P.(C)No.18593 of 2020-Y** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 11[th] day of September, 2020 ## **Manikumar, CJ** Being aggrieved by the report dated 25.9.2019 passed by the Kerala Lok Ayukta in Complaint No.1216 of 2013-B, instant writ petition is filed by the opposite party seeking the following reliefs: - “i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction quashing Exhibit-P13. - ii) Issue a Writ Order or direction declaring that the Kerala Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to entertain Ext. P11 complaint.” 2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that the petitioner is the Apex Bank in the Co-operative Sector of the State of Kerala and is duly represented by its Chief Executive Officer. The 2[nd] respondent while working as the Branch Manager of Kaithamukku Branch of the petitioner Bank has committed severe lapses and irregularities causing monetary loss to the petitioner Bank which was duly quantified. On 30.06.2012, the 2[nd] respondent retired from service as Deputy General Manager, on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner Bank withheld the retirement benefits of the 2[nd] respondent, in order to make good the loss sustained by the Bank, on account of the alleged irregularities committed by him. It is further submitted that the 2[nd] respondent then, approached the Kerala Lok Ayukta, **W.P.(C)No.18593 of 2020-Y** **3** Thiruvananthapuram, vide Complaint No.1216/2013 seeking for directions to the petitioner Bank, to disburse the retirement benefits along with interest, without even resorting to the statutorily available remedies under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner Bank is highly aggrieved by Exhibit-P13 report dated 25.9.2019 of the Lok Ayukta, wherein the Lok Ayukta vide its report dated 25.9.2019, went beyond its jurisdiction and proceeded to declare that the 2[nd] respondent is entitled to receive DCRG and the surrender value of earned leave along with a simple interest @ 7% per annum, when there is not even an averment in the complaint regarding maladministration on the part of the petitioner. The order was passed by the Lok Ayukta, without appreciating the arguments or contentions raised by the petitioner Bank and the same is without jurisdiction and against the settled principles of law. It is thus aggrieved by the findings in the report that the writ petition is filed. 3. The Kerala Lok Ayukta, in its report dated 25.9.2019 in Complaint No.1216 of 2013-B, ordered thus: “12. In the result, we declare that the complainant is entitled to receive the DCRG of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) and the Surrender Value of Earned Leave of Rs.6,05,644/- (Rupees six lakhs five thousand six hundred and forty four only) with simple interest at the rate of 7% **W.P.(C)No.18593 of 2020-Y** **4** per annum from 01.09.2012 till the date of actual payment of them to the complainant. 13. For the reasons stated in this Report, we are satisfied that the action of the respondent in withholding the DCRG of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) and the Surrender Value of Earned Leave of Rs.6,05,644/(Rupees six lakhs five thousand six hundred and forty four only) has resulted in injustice and undue hardship to the complainant. Therefore, by this Report, we recommend to the competent authority viz., the Secretary to Government, Co-operative Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, that such injustice and hardship shall be remedied or redressed by directing the respondent to release the DCRG and the Surrender Value of Earned Leave as stated in this Report within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Report. The competent authority shall submit an action taken report in this Forum within one month of the expiry of the period of two months allowed for remedying or redressing the grievance of the complainant.” ## 4. In support of the prayers sought for, the petitioner has raised the following grounds: A. On a perusal of Ext.P11 complaint, it is discernible that the same is unsustainable before the Lok Ayukta. Respondent No.2 has not taken a specific plea with regard to "grievance" against the petitioner, as defined under Section 2(h) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999. There is no whisper of any injustice or hardship in the complaint caused to the complainant/2[nd] **W.P.(C)No.18593 of 2020-Y** **5** respondent, on account of maladministration. - B. In **A. T. George & others v. P Sarala Kumari & Another** [2007 (4) KHC 582], this Court has observed that satisfaction of the Lok Ayukta regarding the existence of maladministration is not an empty formality and that absence of specific finding by the Lok Ayukta regarding existence of maladministration can be treated as jurisdictional infirmity. In the case on hand, there is no finding of maladministration by the Lok Ayukta and, therefore, Ext.P13 report is vitiated on that count among others. - C. The 2[nd] respondent ought to have approached the competent authority, as envisaged under Section 69 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969. Relying on the decision of a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in **P.S.Ravendran v. State of Kerala & Others** [2007 (3) KLT 558] petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the amendment carried out in the Act constituting Co-operative Arbitration Courts, any dispute arising in connection with employment of officers and servants of different classes of societies has to be decided by the Arbitration Court. As such, the Lok Ayukta had no jurisdiction to entertain Ext.P11 complaint or to carry out any investigation in relation thereto. - D. Even assuming that the Lok Ayukta has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, having regard to the provisions contained in Section 9 (5)(c) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, which provides for refusal to investigate or discontinue investigation of any complaint involving a grievance or an allegation where other remedies are available to the complainant and in the circumstances of the case, it would be proper for the **W.P.(C)No.18593 of 2020-Y** **6** complainant to avail of such remedies, the Lok Ayukta should have refused to investigate. Moreso, when the dispute involved issues touching upon the service conditions of Respondent No.2, as is evident from the impugned report which refers to various clauses of the Kerala Co-operative Staff Bank Regulations and the Co-operative Societies Rules, the Lok Ayukta should have let the authorities under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, to decide the dispute, for which purpose, they have been constituted. E. The Lok Ayukta has proceeded on the basis that there exist no legal instrument by which, gratuity or surrender value of earned leave can be withheld from respondent No. 2. In doing so, the Lok Ayukta altogether missed the provisions contained in Rule 198 (7) of the Co-operative Societies Rules. This rule provides that, in the event of pendency of any disciplinary proceeding against any employee of a Co-operative society, no retirement benefits shall be sanctioned to such employee or retired employee. Indisputably, disciplinary proceedings were pending against the 2[nd] respondent and a charge memo dated 29.06.2012 has been issued to him. The ordinary meaning of “charge sheet” is an allegation of misconduct, negligence, misbehaviour, indiscipline etc., and is to inform the delinquent, as to facts constituting the misconduct committed by him ( **Remani v. Karuvatta SCS** : 1993 (2) KLT 681). It is well settled that disciplinary proceedings are initiated with the issuance of a charge sheet. Rule 198(2) of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, which deals with disciplinary proceedings, contemplates informing the delinquent in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take an action against him. The **W.P.(C)No.18593 of 2020-Y** **7** "memorandum" dated 29.06.2012 more than adequately meets this requirement and the Lok Ayukta erred fundamentally in holding that no disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against Respondent No.2. F. The Lok Ayukta has also lost sight of Rule 197(8) of the Cooperative societies Rules. This rule, as is relevant here, instructs that no retirement benefits shall be sanctioned in respect of the employees until after due issuance of a Non-Liability Certificate by the Chief Executive Officer and approval of the same by the Committee of the Society within thirty days from the retirement of such employee. The rule further states that any loss caused to the society, due to non adherence of this procedure, would entail the Chief Executive Officer along with the Committee to be responsible. Indisputably, no Non-liability certificate had been issued to the 2[nd] respondent, due to his involvement in the irregular sanctioning of loan to Sri K.R.Prasad and the loss caused to the Bank on that account. Unless and until such NonLiability certificate came to be issued to him, 2[nd] respondent could not make any valid claim for pensionary benefits. Lok Ayukta ought not have ignored the mandate of Rule 197(8) of the Co-operative Societies Rules and directed payment of retirement benefits to the 2[nd] respondent. In light of Rule 197(8) of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, Lok Ayukta, could not have held that the petitioner could not withhold retirement benefits to respondent No.2. Ext.P13, having been passed, without taking into account any of these provisions of the Cooperative Societies Rules, deserves to be set aside. - G. Lok Ayukta ought to have seen that respondent No.2 had acted either negligently or wilfully in sanctioning loan amounts grossly **W.P.(C)No.18593 of 2020-Y** **8** disproportionate to the security offered. Lok Ayukta ought to have further seen that respondent No.2 had submitted a report, wherein vital factors diminishing the value of the property was suppressed. As a result, the Bank had suffered enormous losses and it is only on that count, pensionary benefits were withheld. After-all, funds with the Bank are public money and, to whom, the Bank is accountable. Viewed from this context, it cannot be said that the Bank, by withholding the release of pensionary benefits to respondent No.2 had either committed "maladministration" or that such actions had caused "injustice" or "undue hardship" to him. If that be so, the entire claim that the Lok Ayukta ought to have entertained the complaint disappears and the complaint could have been dismissed. H. In **Bright S. v. Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala and Others** [2016 (2) KLT 554], this Court held that it was impermissible for the Lok Ayukta to direct sanctioning pensionary benefits, by way of an adjudicatory order. This is what Lok Ayukta precisely does in the present case, by a report running into 10 pages. Lok Ayukta first holds that no disciplinary proceedings were pending, that neither the staff regulations (Clause 56) nor the Co-operative Societies Rules enable the Petitioner Bank to withhold pensionary benefits and adjudges Respondent No. 2 to be entitled to pensionary benefits with interest. Such adjudication, at the hands of Lok Ayukta, was held to be impermissible by this Court (Also see: **Binil Bala K.P. v. Dr. Shaheeda K.B and Others** : 2020 (2) KHC 495 (DB) holding that Lok Ayukta has no power to issue directions in the matter of salary certificate). Therefore, Ext.P13 has to be set aside on that count.” **W.P.(C)No.18593 of 2020-Y** **9** 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record. 6. Though several contentions have been raised in the instant writ petition, seeking reversal of the report of the Lok Ayukta in Complaint No. 1216/2013 dated 25.09.2019, perusal of the statement by the Regional Manager, Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Regional Office, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 22.09.2017, shows that the entire facts stated by the said authority is only a narration of the action taken against a borrower for realising the loan amount, by initiating proceedings under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Documents in support of the action for realising loan, have been enclosed in the writ petition. Except the above, there is nothing in the pleadings before the Lok Ayukta, to indicate that disciplinary proceedings were initiated by issuing a charge memo to the 2[nd] respondent. However, from the Complaint No.1216/2013, preferred by the 2[nd] respondent before the Lok Ayukta, it is discernible that the complainant himself has stated that on the date of retirement i.e., 30.06.2012, he was served with a Memorandum No. P&E/1499/1395/2012-13 dated 29.06.2012, calling upon to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken **W.P.(C)No.18593 of 2020-Y** **10** against him, with direction to submit his explanation, within 14 days from the date of receipt of the Memorandum, failing which, it should be presumed that he has no explanation to offer and would be proceeded accordingly. 7. In response to the same, the 2[nd] respondent/complainant has submitted his explanation. Though the writ petitioner has contended that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated by issuance of a charge sheet and relied on the decision in **Remani v. Karuvatta S. Coop. Society** [1993 (2) KLT 681], we are of the view that there is absolutely no material to substantiate the same. Memorandum issued states, as to why disciplinary action should not be taken would not amount to issuance of charge memo. Certainly, it can only be a stage, prior to initiation of disciplinary proceedings. 8. When the disciplinary proceedings are said to be initiated, has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a few decisions, some of which we deem it fit to consider : (i) In **Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman** reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the disciplinary proceedings commence only when a charge sheet is issued. In **UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoo** r reported in (2007) 6 SCC 694, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the same. - (ii) In **Coal India Limited & Ors. v. Saroj Kumar Mishra** **W.P.(C)No.18593 of 2020-Y** **11** reported in AIR 2007 SC 1706, the Hon'ble Apex Court, at Paragraph 22, held that a departmental proceeding is ordinarily said to be initiated only when a charge-sheet is issued. (iii) In **Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Others v. Ananta Saha and Others** reported in (2011) 5 SCC 142, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "27. There can be no quarrel with the settled legal proposition that the disciplinary proceedings commence only when a charge-sheet is issued to the delinquent employee." (iv) In **Union of India v. Anil Kumar Sarkar** reported in 2013 (4) SCC 161, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering three questions, viz., (1) What is the date from which it can be said that disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against an employee? (2) What is the course to be adopted when the employee is held guilty in such proceedings if the guilt merits punishment other than that of dismissal? and (3) To what benefits an employee who is completely or partially exonerated is entitled to and from which date? and after considering the decision in **Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman** reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109, held as follows: "Among the three questions, we are concerned about question No.1. As per the rules applicable, the "sealed cover procedure" is adopted when an employee is due for promotion, increment etc. but disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against him at the relevant time and hence, the findings of his entitlement to the benefit are kept in a sealed cover to be opened after the proceedings in question are over. Inasmuch as we are concerned about the first question, the dictum laid down by this Court relating to the said issue is as follows:- ". On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the **W.P.(C)No.18593 of 2020-Y** **12** sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a - charge memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a - charge sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the departmental proceedings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point. ….......” 9. That apart, as observed by the Lok Ayukta in the report in Complaint No.1216/2013 dated 25.09.2019 and from the material on record, it could be deduced that, after receipt of the explanation dated 8.7.2012, there was no further action. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that mere proposal to initiate disciplinary action, by issuing a memorandum, itself amounts to initiation of disciplinary proceedings, cannot be accepted. 10. As Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, has been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and on the reliance placed on the decision in **P.S.Ravendran v. State of Kerala & Others** [2007 (3) KLT 558], let us consider what is the purport behind Section 69 of the Act, it reads as under: **“69. Disputes to be decided by Co-operative** - **Arbitration Court and Registrar.** (1) Notwithstanding **W.P.(C)No.18593 of 2020-Y** **13** anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if a dispute arises,- (a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members; or (b) between a member, past member or person claiming through a member, a past member or deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of the society; or (c) between the society or its committee and any past committee any officer, agent or employee or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the society; or (d) between the society and any other society; or (e) between a society and the members of a society affiliated to it ; or (f) between the society and a person, other than a member of the society, who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had business transactions or any person claiming through such a person; or (g) between the society and a surety of a member, past member, deceased member or employee or a person, other than a member, who has been granted a loan by the society, whether such a surety is or is not a member of the society; or (h) between the society and a creditor of the society, such dispute shall be referred to the Co-operative Arbitration Court constituted under Sec.70A, in the case of non-monetary disputes and to the Registrar, in the case of monetary disputes; and the Arbitration Court, or the Registrar, as the case may be, shall decide such dispute and no other court or other authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute. (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the following shall also be deemed to be disputes, namely:- (a) a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not; (b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor, where **W.P.(C)No.18593 of 2020-Y** **14** the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor, as a result of the default of the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not; (c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of the Board of management or any officer of the society; **Explanation** :- A dispute arising at any stage of an election commencing from the convening of the general body meeting for the election, shall be deemed to be a dispute arising in connection with the election. (d) any dispute arising in connection with employment of officers and servants of the different classes of societies specified in sub-section (1) of Sec.80, including their promotion and inter se seniority. (3) No dispute arising in connection with the election of the Board of Management or an officer of the society shall be entertained by the Cooperative Arbitration Court unless it is referred to it within one month from the date of the election. (4) All monetary disputes mentioned in Schedule II to the Act shall be filed within the time limit specified in the said Schedule.” 11. Reading of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 makes it clear that the disputes that are decided by the Cooperative Arbitration Court and the Registrar, are with reference to members present/past or persons claiming through them, which includes deceased members. Even though clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 69 of the Act refers to an employer or a person other than a member, such dispute should be with reference to a loan granted by the society. 12. It may be true that under Section 69 (1) (b) of the Kerala Co- **15** ## **W.P.(C)No.18593 of 2020-Y** operative Societies Act, 1969, the 2[nd] respondent would be able to raise a dispute as regards the amounts due to him. But the fact remains that the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 enables an aggrieved person to approach the said authority seeking to ventilate his grievances if there is wilful failure or omission to act. The Lok Ayukta is vested with powers under the Act, 1999 to deal with any maladministration which includes such action or the administrative procedure or practice adopted in such action is unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory; or when there has been wilful negligence or undue delay in taking such action or the administrative procedure or practice adopted in such action involves undue delay. Therefore, detention of the amounts legally due to an employee of the Co-operative Society would be unreasonable, unjust and improper on the part of the authorities concerned leading to maladministration, thereby enabling an aggrieved person to approach the Lok Ayukta to ventilate his grievances. 13. Merely because a modality is provided under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 to ventilate the grievance of an employee, that did not disable the 2[nd] respondent to approach the Lok Ayukta, since there was maladministration on the part of the authorities in settling retrial benefits of the 2[nd] respondent. After considering the entire issues **W.P.(C)No.18593 of 2020-Y** **16** raised by the 2[nd] respondent, the Lok Ayukta found that apart from issuing a show cause notice and receiving a reply from the 2[nd] respondent, no action has been initiated against the 2[nd] respondent for any misconduct on his part while functioning as an employee of the petitioner bank. Mere issuance of a show cause notice can never be treated as a charge sheet issued against the 2[nd] respondent, as is contented in the writ petition, which is well settled in legal parlance, in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited above. Hence, there is no basis for the contentions advanced by the petitioner to be considered in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are also of the view that there is no arbitrariness, illegality or any other legal impropriety, justifying interference in the order/report of the Lok Ayukta, in exercise of the power of judicial discretion conferred under law. 14. The allegation made against the petitioner before the Lok Ayukta was that no action was initiated to recover certain dues from a loanee by the 2[nd] respondent. However, it is clear from the order of the Lok Ayukta that there was no material before the Lok Ayukta to arrive at a finding that there was wilful negligence or disobedience on the part of the 2[nd] respondent in proceeding against the loanee for recovery of the **W.P.(C)No.18593 of 2020-Y** **17** amount consequent to the default. It is also clear from the order of the Lok Ayukta that the petitioner bank has not produced sufficient documents to establish that there was negligence or any manner of wilful action on the part of the 2[nd] respondent to proceed against the defaulter of the loan. It was accordingly that the Lok Ayukta has arrived at the definite conclusions that there is no question of any misconduct being considered against the 2[nd] respondent, since there was no evidence before the Lok Ayukta to arrive at any such conclusion. 15. It is well settled that death-cum-retirement gratuity is a right of an employee to be received on his retirement along with all other pensionary benefits and retiral dues. As we have pointed out earlier, the bank has not initiated any action against the 2[nd] respondent, by framing a charge, in order to proceed against him after his retirement. Therefore, the Lok Ayukta was right in holding that the 2[nd] respondent ought to have been paid the DCRG, as well as other retiral benefits due to him. 16. Record of proceedings shows that the 2[nd] respondent has retired from service, as early as on 30.06.2012 and the complaint before the Lok Ayukta was filed only in the year 2013. Hence, it is evident that no action has been initiated against the petitioner bank by a procedure **W.P.(C)No.18593 of 2020-Y** **18** known to law enabling the bank to detain the DCRG, as well as the value of Earned Leave Surrender. The petitioner bank has failed to establish that it has suffered any loss consequent to the misconduct of the 2[nd] respondent. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to arrive at a finding that there is no illegality, arbitrariness, or any other legal infirmity justifying interference with the findings rendered by the Lok Ayuka and consequential recommendations made for payment of DCRG and value of Earned Leave Surrender. 17. Lok Ayukta has also found that there was considerable delay on the part of the petitioner bank to pay the DCRG and relying upon various judgments rendered by this Court, as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has arrived at the finding that the 2[nd] respondent is entitled to get interest at the rate of 7%. 18. Though a contention was raised to the effect that Lok Ayukta is not vested with powers to direct payment of interest to the belated payment of DCRG benefits has some force, we are of the considered opinion that the Lok Ayukta is vested with powers to recommend compensation and, therefore, the interest charged can be treated as compensation, ordered by the Lok Ayukta. This we say because, it is well settled in law that pension and other retiral benefits are not a bounty of **19** ## **W.P.(C)No.18593 of 2020-Y** the employer and the same has to be paid, no sooner the employee retires. Therefore, the interest imposed in the order of the Lok Ayukta at the rate of 7% is treated as compensation awarded by the Lok Ayukta to the 2[nd] respondent for non-payment of DCRG, as well as the value of Earned Leave Surrender appropriately to the 2[nd] respondent and within a reasonable time after his retirement. Upshot of the above discussion is that the petitioner is not entitled to get any reliefs as is sought for in the writ petition. Writ petition fails and accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- **S.Manikumar, Chief Justice** Sd/- **Shaji P.Chaly Judge** ## **vpv** **W.P.(C)No.18593 of 2020-Y** **20** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AT THE TIME OF JOINING THE BANK DATED 03/03/1980.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPRAISAL MEMORANDUM & SANCTION SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 (DATE NIL).** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09/12/2011 ISSUED TO SRI.K.R.PRASAD BY THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16/12/2011 ISSUED TO SRI.K.R.PRASAD BY THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 04/09/2012 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (P&E) OF THE PETITIONER BANK TO THE REGIONAL MANAGER.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 07/09/2012 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 13/09/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER TO THE PETITIONER BANK.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 24/06/2013 ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER OF THE BANK.** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 15/06/2013 TAKING OVER POSSESSION OF THE SECURED ASSET.** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE OF SALE DATED 20/08/2013 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER BANK.** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13/11/2013 FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 BEFORE THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA IN COMPLAINT NO.1216 OF 2013 (B) (WITHOUT EXHIBITS).** **21** ## **W.P.(C)No.18593 of 2020-Y** **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 22/09/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO COMPLAINT NO.1216 OF 2013 B ON THE FILES OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA.** **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 25/09/2019 PASSED BY THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA IN COMPLAINT NO.1216 OF 2013 B.** /true copy/ P.A. to Judge