M.R.SURENDRADAS v STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN** **MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/15TH SRAVANA 1934** **WP(C).No. 19707 of 2007 (U) ---------------------------** **PETITIONER: -----------** **M.R.SURENDRADAS, 28/566, NANU EZHUTHACHAN NAGAR, IIND LANE, P.O.VADAKKECHIRA, TRICHUR - 20.** **BY ADVS.SRI.ASP.KURUP SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP** **RESPONDENTS:** **--------------** **1. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD, ISPAT BHAVAN, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 3.** **2. THE CHAIRMAN, STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. ISPAT BHAVAN, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 3.** **3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SALEM STEEL PLANT, SALEM - 13, TAMIL NADU.** **BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **VK** ## **WP(C).No. 19707 of 2007 (U) ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **--------** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ---------------------** **EXT.P1. COPY OF CHARGE SHEET DATED 6.3.2001 GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXT.P2. COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 18.12.2001 SUMITTED BY ENQUIRY OFFICER.** **EXT.P3. COPY OF PUNISHMENT ORDER DATED 28.2.2002 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT** **EXT.P4. COPY OF APPEL DATED 16.3.2002 GIVEN BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT** **EXT.P5. COPY OF REMINDER DATED 4.6.2002 GIVEN BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P6. COPY OF COMMUNICAION AS WELL AS ORDER DATED 28.6.2002 SIGNED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P7. COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 7.1.2006 IN O.P. NO.26440/2002.** **EXT.P8. COPY OF ORDER DATED 10.1.2007 IN R.P. NO.8/2007.** **EXT.P9. COPY OF ORDER DATED 7.3.2007 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P10. COPY OF ORDER DATED 23.3.2004 PASSED BY SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI, MUMBAI** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBTS : NIL** **-------------------** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **VK** ## **S. SIRI JAGAN, J.** ------------------------------------------- ## W.P.(C) No.19707 of 2007 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 6[th] day of August, 2012 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner was working as Chief (Marketing) SSP Division of the 1[st] respondent. Just before his retirement, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on certain allegations of misconduct alleged to have been committed by him while he was working as Regional Manager, Western Region. Ext.P1 charge sheet was issued to him. He filed reply denying the charges. An enquiry was conducted. The inquiring authority submitted Ext.P2 enquiry report finding the petitioner not guilty of the charges levelled against the petitioner. The 3[rd] respondent issued Ext.R2(a) memo, apparently proposing to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer and directing the petitioner to make representation in respect thereof. In answer to Ext.R2(a), the petitioner filed Ext.R2(b) reply requesting the 3[rd] respondent to exonerate him based on his defence statement and position explained in the enquiry proceedings. But, Ext.P3 order was 2 W.P.(C)No.19707/07 passed by the disciplinary authority finding the petitioner guilty of all the three charges levelled against him and imposing on the petitioner the punishment of reduction in grade. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 appeal, which was rejected by Ext.P6 order of the appellate authority. The petitioner approached this Court by filing O.P.No.26440/2002, in which this Court directed the appellate authority to reconsider the appeal giving reasons for the decision. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P9 order has been passed by the appellate authority confirming the punishment imposed on the petitioner. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “A) issue a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P3 & P9 orders as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Steel Authority of India Limited Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules 1977 and the principles of natural justice. B) issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents to give the petitioner all the monitory and other benefits due to him during the period in which he was kept out of service in an illegal and arbitrary manner including the cost of the proceedings before this Honourable Court. C) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to get his full salary and other allowances and also the benefit of Provident Fund, Gratuity etc. during the period in which he was kept under suspension as it was illegal and arbitrary.” W.P.(C)No.19707/07 3 2. Earlier, I allowed the writ petition by judgment dated 8.12.2011 finding that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to show cause against the proposal to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer. The respondents filed R.P.No.92 of 2012 producing Ext.R2(a) and R2(b) claiming that the same are the show cause notice for differing with the findings of the inquiring authority and the petitioner's reply thereto. After considering the same, I recalled my judgment dated 8.12.2011 and restored the writ petition for hearing. It is pursuant to the same, the writ petition comes up before me again for hearing. 3. The petitioner now contends that in Ext.P2, the inquiring authority had given elaborate reasons for his conclusion that the petitioner is not guilty of the misconducts alleged against him. He points out that neither in Ext.R2(a) nor in Ext.P3 order are there any reasons as to why the findings of the inquiring authority is wrong. He would submit that Ext.P3 order has been passed simply holding that the petitioner is guilty of the misconducts alleged against him after W.P.(C)No.19707/07 4 reiterating the misconduct, without giving any reasons whatsoever, which is contrary to the SAIL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules 1997. The petitioner submits that no reasons are forthcoming as to why the 3[rd] respondent found the petitioner guilty of the misconducts alleged against him, contrary to the findings of the inquiring authority. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed, in which, the stand taken is that the findings of the inquiring authority is contrary to the documents available in the enquiry itself and therefore the findings are not in accordance with the evidence adduced in the enquiry. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the disciplinary authority was correct in disagreeing with the findings of the inquiring authority. It is submitted that, although elaborate reasons are not given in the order, sufficient reasons are given, which would satisfy the rule regarding the same. It is further submitted that several other officers were proceeded against along with the petitioner, in respect of the same subject, all of whom have been punished and they have suffered their W.P.(C)No.19707/07 5 punishment which have become final. As such, if the petitioner is alone exonerated on technical reasons, that would be against justice, is the contention raised. The learned counsel for the respondents relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in _**Tara Chand Khatri**_ v. _**Municipal Corporation**_ _**of Delhi and others**_ [AIR (1977) SC 567], for the proposition that the elaborate reasons need not be stated for the findings of the disciplinary authority. 5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 6. Rule 26 of the SAIL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977 prescribes a procedure for taking action on the enquiry report submitted by the inquiring authority. The same reads thus: “26.0 ACTION ON THE INQUIRY REPORT: (1) The disciplinary authority if it is not itself the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing emit the case to the same or another inquiring authority for fresh or further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold a fresh or further inquiry according to the provisions of rule 25 as far as may be. (2) The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence W.P.(C)No.19707/07 6 ## on record is sufficient for the purpose. (3) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in rule 23 should be imposed on the employee, it shall, not withstanding anything contained in rule 27, make an order imposing such penalty. (4) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that no penalty is called for, it may pass an order exonerating the employee concerned. (5) If the Disciplinary Authority is not itself the Inquiring Authority i) and the findings of the Inquiring Authority are in favour of the employee concerned but the Disciplinary Authority is not inclined to agree with the findings; or ii) the findings recorded by the Inquiring Authority are adverse to the employee concerned and the Disciplinary Authority is inclined to agree with the said findings. The Disciplinary Authority shall furnish a copy of the Inquiry report to the employee concerned, for making representation. The employee concerned shall make his representation, if any, within seven days of the receipt of the copy of the Report and the representation, if made, shall be considered by the Disciplinary Authority. In case the employee fails to make representation within the stipulated period of seven days, it would be presumed that the employee concerned has nothing to represent and the Disciplinary Authority shall thereafter be free to act on the said Report.” ## (underlining supplied) Sub rule 2 thereof states in unmistakable terms that if the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the 7 W.P.(C)No.19707/07 inquiring authority on any article of charge, he shall record reasons for such disagreement and record his own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. Therefore, when the disciplinary authority intends to disagree with the findings of the inquiring authority. giving of reasons is mandatory beyond any shadow of doubt. So, I have to necessarily consider the question as to whether in the impugned order sufficient reasons have been given for disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondents in the decision of the Supreme Court in _**Tara Chand Khatri's**_ decision (supra) for the proposition that elaborate reasons need not be stated for such decision does not appeal to me. That was a case where the delinquent was found guilty by the inquiring authority himself dealing with which the Supreme Court has held that it is not obligatory on the State Government to give reasons in support of the order imposing penalty on a delinquent officer, when it was based on detailed enquiry conducted by an officer appointed in that behalf that W.P.(C)No.19707/07 8 the penalty was imposed. That cannot have any application to a case where the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority, after the inquiring authority finds the delinquent not guilty of the misconducts against him. ## 7. The three charges have been levelled against the petitioner. They are as follows: “1. Sri. MR Surendradas extended unsecured credit to M/s Tubex Metals (P) Ltd., Mumbai, without approval from Competent authority during the financial year 1999-2000. 2. Sri MR Surendradas did not monitor the payment of amounts outstanding against the party. 3. Sri MR Surendradas did not act as per the advice of the associate finance while processing the case.” The conclusion arrived at by the inquiring authority in respect of first charge is contained in page 56 of Ext.P2 enquiry report, ## which reads thus: ## “CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY INQUIRING AUTHORITY ON ALLEGATIONS AT (a): Defence could establish that the RO No.B-1400 was issued by Mr. P Manoj, Exe (M) at the instance of DGM (M) SSP Salem. Circumstantial evidence as well as the deposition of Mr. Manoj during the course of enquiry and his written statement are sufficient grounds to conclude that there has been a specific understandings at SSP Salem for the price and unsecured credit facility at which materials under RO B-1400 has been supplied. It is to be noted that the order was W.P.(C)No.19707/07 9 finalised at SSP HQ Salem and Mr. Surendradas was not involved in this exercise. The original letter (Purchase Order) No.TMPL/99-00/2026 dt. 11.11.99 of M/s Tubex Metal (P) Ltd was addressed to Salem, Marketing HQ for supply of 70 MT which was amended to 80 MT vide letter of even number dt. 29.11.99 (DEX-18). Failure of the Prosecution to produce a copy of the original letter dt. 11.11.99 of M/s Tubex Metals (P) Ltd which is a vital document in the entire episode cannot be ignored. The contention of Defence that the above letter would have brought out the details of discussions of the customer with SSP HQ personnel before the issuance of Purchase Order is to be accepted. The deposition of Shri Ramesh D Lodaya to ACVO during Preliminary Enquiry (DEX-31 - Question No.4) is of relevance and importance which is quoted below: “Question No.4- Was it not necessary to check up for approval of unsecured credit before releasing the material worth about Rs.82 lakhs on unsecured credit against RO No.B-1400? Ans- As per practice, once an RO is issued by the branch, materials are cleared for loading based on the information given in t he RO. Approval from GM (M&C) for the above is enclosed. Therefore, the decision for sending the material from SSP Salem to the customer against unsecured credit was a foregone conclusion and SSP HQ wanted an enabling document in the form of RO from the branch. Ratification of such transactions was done always on post-facto basis by SSP management at Salem irrespective of whether the Branch/Region specifically seek approvals on “Post-facto” basis or not. Thus it is found to be immaterial whether the proposal contains the word “Post-facto”. Even the Committee responsible for scrutinising and recommending the proposals avoided the use of the word “post-facto”. So is the case with approving authority. No caution was issued to the branches by either Marketing or Finance or ED to avoid seeking approvals on post-facto basis, if this was W.P.(C)No.19707/07 10 considered an unacceptable practice. From the documents produced by Prosecution and Defence, I could see that there was never a practice of initiating credit proposals by the Regional Manager. In this particular case of RO No.B-1400, Sri MR Surendradas was not in the knowledge of the date of issuance of RO on 16.11.99. The contention of the Prosecution that approval given by GM(M&C) to the proposal at exhibit PEX-8 is only for price and not for unsecured credit is not tenable since Sri Ramesh D Lodaya, DCFM I/c SSP Salem who is a member of the Committee as finance representative in his deposition to ACVO during preliminary enquiry admitted that the document at PEX-8 is an approval for price and unsecured credit. And therefore I am of the firm opinion that the proposal at PEX-8 (RO No.B-1400) is the approval for price as well as credit terms in the absence of specific remarks by the approving authority to the contrary. On careful consideration of both Prosecution and Defence arguments contained in their respective briefs, as well as the deposition of witnesses, it can be said convincingly that the CSE did not cause the issue or RO No.B1400 which resulted in extending unsecured credit to the extent of Rs.84 lakhs (approx.) against supply of materials directly from SSP Salem to M/s Tubex Metals (P) Ltd. In view of the foregoing the charge relating to issuance of R I No.B- 1400 dt. 16 11 99 that Sri Surendradas extended unsecured credit to M/s Tubex Metals (P) Ltd without approval from Competent Authority during the financial year 992000 is not proved.” The findings of the inquiring authority in respect of the 2[nd] charge is contained in Page 67 of Ext.P2 enquiry report, which reads thus: W.P.(C)No.19707/07 11 ## “CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE INQUIRING AUTHORITY ON CHARGE AT (b): As regards monitoring of outstanding is concerned, SSP Finance took a stand that it is the business of the Regional set-up. However, it is seen that SSP Finance has been bringing out age-wise analysis of outstandings and sending the same to the Branches/Regions for their perusal and further action. Therefore, it is not correct to say that there is no question of monitoring of outstanding by SSP. In the case of M/s. Tubex Metals Pvt Ltd., sufficient grounds are available to establish that monitoring or non-monitoring, materials would have been despatched, as can be seen from the evidences given by S/Shri Ramesh Lodaya, DCFM, V Prabhakar, Chief (M) and GM (M&C). It could be seen that in a few proposals outstanding positions were highlighted but neither the Credit Recommendation Committee nor the approving authorities have ever taken note of this aspect in respect of M/s. Tubex Metals Pvt Ltd. Obviously, the Region would have come to the conclusion that there is absolutely no problem in supplying the materials to M/s. Tubex Metals even if there was outstanding/overdue outstanding. It is seen that there is a mention in the recommendation of the Committee that Branch should take efforts to clear the overdue outstanding. However, never any action was taken for stoppage of materials till the time the outstanding were cleared. At the same time, the materials were allowed to be despatched from Salem without any check. It is apparent that none considered important at that point of time to see whether there was adequate check on the overdue outstanding against this party. Mrs.N Ganguly, Manager (F), BSO, Mumbai brought out the aspect of outstanding to the knowledge of Salem Management vide her note dt. 24 7 98 (DEX13) The role of Associate Finance and Regional SSP Marketing was only accounting and the Associate Finance has no role to recommend the grant of Unsecured Credit or discounts etc. However, no proof is available either on record or from oral evidence that action was initiated by Salem W.P.(C)No.19707/07 12 Management to check or control the overdue outstanding in respect of M/s.Tubex Metals Pvt Ltd. Free movement of materials was allowed even without getting a proposal from the Region/Branch for grant of Unsecured Credit. Therefore, in effect, there has never been a control mechanism available at Salem in the mater of monitoring of overdue outstanding of M/s. Tubex Metals Pvt Ltd. Even if it was introduced at the Regional level, the evidence available proves that it would have been very ineffective at least in the case of M/s. Tubex Metals. The deposition of Mr. M V Anand against Question No.56(p-179) makes it very clear that the MIS statements and other party-wise outstanding (Secured/Unsecured)was being sent regularly by the Branch at Mumbai. Against a further question (no.46, p-178), Shri Anand replied that the cheque bouncing of Tubex had nothing to do with the practices and policies followed at SSP, but it is a failure of the customer due to his financial position. Therefore, it is immaterial whether monitoring of overdue outstanding by the Region/Branch was in existence or not. It cannot be said that monitoring can be done only through paper. Regular telephonic/personal monitoring which did not get recorded cannot be completely ignored. DEX-26 incidentally is an MIS Report giving party-wise outstanding against Credit Sales which includes Tubex Metals Pvt Ltd. Therefore, the argument of the Prosecution that Shri Surendradas did not monitor the outstanding against the customer. M/s. Tubex Metals Pvt Ltd. Is not tenable. And it never would have improved the situation, I am convinced.” ## The conclusion of the inquiring authority on the 3[rd] charge is contained in page 69 of Ext.P2, which reads thus: ## “CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY INQUIRING AUTHORITY ON CHARGES AT (c): The alleged action of Shri Surendradas relates to D O No.319 dt. 30 11 99. In fact, as an initiator of the proposal, it should have been the responsibility of Shri Shailendra Kumar o highlight the outstanding position W.P.(C)No.19707/07 13 before the same was put up to RM for his approval. In this particular case, this did not happen. It was left to Manager (Finance) to point out that approvals are not available. This remark was seen by the initiator of the DO who could have immediately prepared fresh proposal for seeking the post-facto approval from the Competent Authority, as has been the practice in all cases. However, Shri Shailendra Kumar did not do his part of the duty of initiating the credit proposal. Recording by Shri Surendradas that he had discussed with SSP HQ and suggested to send a proposal gives an impression that the action of releasing the D O had the tacit approval of SSP HQ. Incidentally, the DO was released by the Executive (Marketing).” The inquiring authority issued Ext.R2(a), which is the notice proposing to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer, which reads thus: “A memorandum vide reference No. PL-3120801 dated 06.03.2001 was issued to you and departmental enquiry was conducted. The undersigned has now received the enquiry report. I have done through the enquiry report and the related documents. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of all related documents, I find that: 01. Unsecured credit to M/s Tubex Metals Pvt Ltd, Mumbai was extended by you without the approval of ED, SSP. The Competent Authority in the matter. The approval on the price proposal by GM (M&C), cannot be taken as an approval for extending unsecured credit to the party. 02. Further, as Regional Manager, WR, SSP, your are responsible for monitoring the outstanding of the respective parties in your jurisdiction, which you failed to do in the instant case. 03. It is also established that you over-ruled the advice of the Manger (Associate Finance) while granting the unsecured credit to the party on the ground of relating the matter to higher ups, but failed to take action in this regard. W.P.(C)No.19707/07 14 Hence, the charges under Memorandum vide reference No.PL-3(2000) dated 06.03.2001 stand established. A copy of the Enquiry Report is enclosed. If you wish to make any representation or submission, you may do so in writing within 7 (Seven) days of the receipt of this Memo.” In reply, the petitioner submitted Ext.R2(b), which reads thus: “ I am in receipt of your memo ref. No.PL-3(2080) dated 26[th] February 2002 I had already explained the facts during the inquiry Proceedings and also in my defence statement. I would request you to kindly consider my long, unblemished service of about 41 years in SAIL and request you to kindly exonerate me, based on my defence statement and position explained in the Inquiry Proceedings.” ## After considering the matter, the 3[rd] respondent passed Ext.P3 ## final order of punishment, which reads thus: “WHEREAS, Major Penalty proceedings under Rule 25 of SAIL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977 was initiated against Shri MR Surendradas, Chief (Mktg), SSD, Coimbatore vide Memorandum No.PL-3 (2080) dated March 06, 2001. WHEREAS, an enquiry under Rule 25 of SAIL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977 was ordered against Shri MR Surendradas, vide order No.PL-3 (2080) dated 31.05.2001. AND WHEREAS Departmental proceedings were held and Inquiry Report has been submitted by the Inquiry Authority, a copy of which was given to Shri MR Surendradas. On careful consideration of the Departmental Inquiry Report, day to day proceedings, the submission made by Shri MR Surendradas, on the Inquiry Report and other related records, I find that, Unsecured Credit to M/s Tubex Metals Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai was extended by Shri MR Surendradas, without the approval of ED, SSP, the Competent W.P.(C)No.19707/07 15 Authority in the matter, the price approval by GM (M&C) cannot be taken as an approval for extending unsecured credit to M/s Tubex Metals Pvt Ltd. Shri MR Surendradas, as Regional Manager, WR, Mumbai, had failed to monitor the outstandings of M/s Tubex Metals. Shri MR Surendradas did not heed to the advice of the Manager (Associate Finance) while granting unsecured credit to the party. NOW, THEREFORE, it is ordered that Shri MR Surendradas be reduced from the present E-5 grade (Scale of Pay Rs. 18500-450-23900) to the lower grade of E-4 (Scale of Pay Rs.17500-400-22300) with immediate effect. The basic pay of Shri MR Surendradas on reduction to the lower grade will be Rs.21,900/- as against his current basic pay of Rs.22,100/-.” 8. The question is as to whether Ext.R2(a) or Ext.P3 contains sufficient reasons for the disciplinary authority to disagree with the findings of the inquiring authority. I do not think that hair-splitting arguments are necessary to conclude that it does not. In Ext.P2, regarding the 1[st] charge the inquiring authority specifically entered a finding that 'it is to be noted that the order was finalised at SSP HQ, Salem and Mr. Surendradas was not involved in this exercise.' The inquiring authority was also of opinion that the correct picture is available in the original letter dated 11.11.99, which is a vital document, which the respondents did not produce in the W.P.(C)No.19707/07 16 enquiry. In Exts.R2(a) notice and Ext.P3 order, except reiterating the charges, there is no reasons whatsoever, which would appeal to any reasonable man, to disagree with the elaborate findings entered by the inquiring authority. The same is the case with the other two charges as well. When the rule itself mandates that the disciplinary authority shall record its reasons for disagreement and record its own findings on each charge, then the disciplinary authority cannot simply reiterate the charges and say that, according to him, the charges have been proved. That should necessarily be supported by adequate reasons, if not elaborate reasons. That reasons are conspicuously absent in Ext.R2(a) and Ext.P3. The absence of reasons in Ext.R2(a) and Ext.P3 cannot be cured by supplying reasons in the counter affidavit or in the arguments. Therefore, I have no doubt in my mind that Ext.R2(a) and Ext.P3 are vitiated for lack of reasons to disagree with the findings of the inquiring authority, who found the petitioner not guilty of all the three charges. Without finding the petitioner guilty of the charges for acceptable reasons, no punishment W.P.(C)No.19707/07 17 can be imposed on the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned orders are quashed. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents makes a fervent plea for another opportunity to reconsider the matter and supply reasons for disagreement with the findings in the enquiry report. The disciplinary proceedings started as early as on 6.3.2001, when Ext.P1 charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. Almost 12 years are over. The petitioner earlier approached this Court and obtained Ext.P7 judgment in which there was also a review petition, in which Ext.P8 order was passed. I also had initially passed a judgment in this writ Petition which was recalled allowing the Review Petition filed by the respondents. After 12 years, and two writ petitions with a review petition in each, I do not think that it would be just or reasonable to give the respondents another opportunity to cure the defects in the disciplinary proceedings, especially when the petitioner has long retired from service. Therefore, that prayer is declined. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, 18 W.P.(C)No.19707/07 the petitioner will be entitled to all monetary benefits arising from the above findings as if no punishment had been imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner would, therefore, be entitled to arrears of monetary benefits and retirement benefits without reference to the orders, which have been quashed by me today. Orders sanctioning the arrears of monetary benefits and retirement benefits due to the petitioner shall be passed and arrears disbursed to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ## **S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE** acd W.P.(C)No.19707/07 19 W.P.(C)No.19707/07 20