State of Kerala and others v. Capt. Samuel Mathew Parakkat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 1399 of 2006 --------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.15804/2004 Dated 09/06/2006 .................... APPELLANT(S):/RESPONDENTS -------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., VIGILANCE (D) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SAINIK WELFARE) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF SAINIK WELFARE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- CAPT. SAMUEL MATHEW PARAKKAT, DIRECTOR IN CHARGE (RETD.), DIRECTORATE OF SAINIK WELFARE, NOW RESIDING AT PARAKKATT HOUSE, THENGUKARA.P.O, MALLASSERY, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.** ## **------------------------------** W.A.NO.1399/2006 ## **------------------------------** Dated this, the 12[th] day of January, 2010 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Balakrishnan Nair, J.** The respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants. The respondent herein was the writ petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The respondent was a Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer working under the appellants. He joined the said post after 13 years of military service on 29.07.1988. In the year 1996, a vigilance enquiry was conducted into certain allegations against him. In the enquiry some of the allegations appeared to be tenable and therefore, the disciplinary authority decided to take disciplinary action action against him. He was served with a memo of charges. The allegations against him were the following: “That you, Capt.Samuel Mathew Parakkat (Retd), Parakkat House, Thenyakavu P.O., Konni, Pathanamthitta while working as a Government servant in the capacity of Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer, WA No.1399/2006 - 2 - Kasaragode was unauthorisedly absent from your office on 21.12.1992 to 31.12.1992. And that you while working as above have resorted to short payment of the financial grants like DBF, SMBF, MACF which were sanctioned to the Exservicemen and dependents by deducting amounts from Rs.20/- to Rs.100/- from the sanctioned amount but at the same time marking entries in the discharge books and office records that the sanctioned amount has been paid and also obtaining the signatures of the beneficiaries for the same. And that you while working as above, demanded and accepted amounts varying from Rs.100/- to Rs.300/- for official duties from the widows of the Ex-servicemen, and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty.” The respondent submitted his written statement of defence, denying those allegations. The Government found that his reply was not satisfactory and therefore, decided to hold an enquiry into those allegations. So, by Ext.P1 order dated 25.6.1996, the matter was referred by the Government to the Vigilance Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, to hold an enquiry against him. The Tribunal after holding the enquiry, submitted its report. It WA No.1399/2006 - 3 - found that the respondent was guilty of all the three charges levelled against him. It also suggested to impose a penalty of reduction in stage to the lowest time scale applicable to the post, for a period of two years. The Government accepted the findings of the Tribunal and took a provisional decision to impose the penalty of temporary reduction in stage to the lowest time scale applicable to the post, as suggested by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the respondent was served with Ext.P2 show cause notice containing the said provisional decision of the Government. A copy of the report of the Vigilance Tribunal was also forwarded to him. The respondent submitted a reply to the show cause notice on 3.8.1998. Thereafter, the Public Service Commission (for short “PSC”) was consulted. The Commission felt that the proposed penalty is quite inadequate to the gravity of the misconduct proved and therefore, suggested that he should be reverted to the lower stage for a period of five years. In view of the said opinion of the PSC, the respondent was served with Ext.P3 revised show cause notice on 13.6.2000. The respondent submitted Ext.P4 reply to the above memo. WA No.1399/2006 - 4 - While the matter was pending before the Government, the respondent retired from service on 31.3.2001. Thereafter, the Government passed Ext.P5 order on 20.09.2001, imposing a punishment of reduction in stage to the lowest time scale applicable for the post for a period of five years. The punishment was to be imposed by recovering the monetary value, equivalent to the amount arising out of such reduction, from the pension/DCRG payable to the respondent. Challenging Ext.P5, the respondent preferred O.P.No.32402/2001. Later, the Government realised that after the retirement of the respondent, no action could be taken under Rule 15 to impose any of the punishments enumerated under Rule 11 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 (for short “KCS (CC&A) Rules”). Therefore, the Government decided to recall Ext.P5 and also to proceed under Rule 3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (for short “KSR”). Thereafter, the respondent was served with a notice on 1.10.2003, containing the revised proposal of the Government. The respondent filed his reply to the said notice WA No.1399/2006 - 5 - on 3.11.2003. In the meantime, before proceeding with the revised proposal, the PSC was also consulted. After considering the reply submitted by the respondent on 3.11.2003, the PSC was not further consulted. The Accountant General suggested as to what should be the amount that may be recovered from the monthly pension, so that in substance the same amount that would have been recovered under Ext.P5 could be withheld. Taking into account the said letter of the Accountant General, the Government issued Ext.P8 order, deciding to reduce the monthly pension of the respondent by Rs.1820/- for a period of sixty months. Thus, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent were finalised. The present Writ Petition was filed by the respondent, challenging Ext.P8. The consequential order Ext.P9 issued by the Accountant General pursuant to Ext.P8 was also challenged. The respondent contended that after retirement there is no employee-employer relationship and therefore, no action could have been taken against him after his retirement. It was also pointed out that in the case on hand, no loss was caused to the Government and WA No.1399/2006 - 6 - therefore, action under Rule 3 of Part III of the KSR was not permissible. It was also pointed out that separate proceedings should have been initiated under Rule 3, for assessing the loss caused or the amount to be recovered from his pension. The appellants/respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit, resisting the prayers in the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, upheld all the contentions raised by the respondent/writ petitioner and allowed the Writ Petition. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, this Writ Appeal is preferred by the respondents in the Writ Petition. 3. We heard Sri.Benny Gervasis, learned senior Government Pleader for the appellants and also Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned counsel for the respondent. The learned senior Government Pleader submitted that the grounds taken by the learned Single Judge for allowing the Writ Petition are untenable. Even if an employee retires from service, the pending proceedings can be converted into one under Rule 3 of Part III of the KSR and pension can be reduced appropriately. Further, even if there is no monetary loss caused to the WA No.1399/2006 - 7 - Government, reduction or withholding of pension can be ordered, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in **Union of India v. B.Dev** [AIR 1998 SC 2709] and the decisions of this Court in **Jayarajan v. State of Kerala** [2001(3) KLT 929] and **Raveendran Nair v. State of Kerala** [2007(1) KLT 605 (FB)]. The learned Single Judge misread the decision of the Apex Court in **Union of India v. B.Dev** (supra), it is submitted. In this case, following the procedure prescribed by the Rules and in compliance with the principles of natural justice, the action was completed and therefore, there was no reason or occasion for this Court to interfere with the same. So, the learned senior Government Pleader prayed for reversing the judgment under appeal and for dismissing the Writ Petition. 4. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, who appeared for the respondent/writ petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that disciplinary proceedings were attacked for various reasons. Though some of them were not considered by the learned Single Judge, the respondent is entitled to support the judgment on all the grounds available under law. He pointed out that after WA No.1399/2006 - 8 - obtaining the respondent's reply dated 3.11.2003, the PSC was not consulted, as contemplated under Rule 3(d) of Part III of the KSR. The proposal regarding the quantum to be recovered from the pension of the respondent, suggested by the Accountant General, was not put to him. Further, the finding that he committed grave misconduct has been arrived at without application of mind and without hearing him. At no point of time, personal hearing was rendered to him. The above procedural improprieties vitiate the impugned order and therefore, the interference made by the learned Single Judge is liable to be sustained. The learned counsel also pointed out that what is finalised under Ext.P8 is the disciplinary proceedings. The same cannot be treated as finalisation of a proceeding under Rule 3 of Part III of the KSR. The learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order is a non-speaking order without dealing with the contentions of the respondent. 5. The learned senior Government Pleader, in answer, submitted that the contentions of the respondent are devoid of any merit. The consultation with the PSC is not mandatory and WA No.1399/2006 - 9 - unless prejudice is shown, the same is not a ground vitiating the order. He further submitted that consultation under Rule 3(d) is not necessary, in view of the provisions of Rule 6 of the Kerala Public Service Commission (Consultation) Regulations, 1957. The respondent was personally heard by the Under Secretary, Vigilance Department on 26.7.2000 and thereafter, before the finalisation of the proceedings he was again given a chance of personal hearing on 9.12.2003. But, the respondent did not turn up. The learned senior Government Pleader also pointed out that the technical contentions raised by the respondent are only to be rejected. 6. The finding of the learned Single Judge that if no monetary loss is caused, there cannot be any recovery from pension, is plainly untenable, in view of the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court, relied on by the learned senior Government Pleader. Even if no monetary loss is caused, action under Rule 3 of Part III of the KSR can be taken and pension can be reduced, having regard to the facts of the case. 7. The next point to be considered is whether there was WA No.1399/2006 **==> picture [33 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** consultation with the PSC, as contemplated under Rule 3(d) of Part III of the KSR and if there was no consultation, what is the legal consequence of the same? It is common ground that Ext.P5 order was preceded by a consultation with the PSC and by letters dated 16.6.1999 and 6.3.2000, the PSC conveyed its views regarding the proposed action against the respondent. Later, the Government decided to revoke Ext.P5 and also to reduce the monthly pension for a period. The Government tentatively took the view that as a result of reduction in pension, the total loss caused to the respondent should be equivalent to the loss which he would have suffered, if Ext.P8 order was passed while he was in service. After taking that tentative view, the PSC was consulted and it gave its views on 7.8.2003. Subsequently, the show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 1.10.2003 and his reply obtained. Thereafter, of course, the PSC was not consulted on the objections of the respondent. The services of the Accountant General were pressed into service, to find out what would be the amount that would have been recovered from the respondent, if Ext.P5 was WA No.1399/2006 - 11 - implemented and also to suggest how the period of recovery should be adjusted, so that recovery from the monthly pension will not be excessive. So, the Accountant General suggested, as per letter dated 22.12.2003 that the recovery may be at the rate of Rs.1820/- per month for a period of sixty months. In that event, the money recovered will be equivalent to the money that would have been recovered under Ext.P5. Rule 3(d) of Part III of the KSR says that there should be consultation with the PSC before final orders are passed in a proceeding under Rule 3. In this case, after taking a decision to proceed under Rule 3, the tentative proposals were put to the PSC and its opinion was obtained. But, as mentioned earlier, the explanation offered by the respondent on 3.11.2003 was not placed before the PSC. It is well settled by several decisions of the Apex Court that consultation with the PSC in matters arising under Article 320 is only directory in nature. All statutory provisions are liable to be obeyed, irrespective of whether they are mandatory or directory. If mandatory provisions are violated, the action will be nullified. If a directory provision is WA No.1399/2006 - 12 - violated, the resultant order will be nullified, if prejudice is shown. In this case, the proposal of the Government was to recall Ext.P5 and to recover a portion of the pension of the respondent. That was, in fact, put to the PSC. Its views were obtained and the very same proposal was implemented also. The Accountant General was asked only to give the monetary equivalent of the amount which would have been recovered from the respondent, if Ext.P5 was implemented. The said amount alone was ordered to be recovered from the pension of the respondent. Therefore, we think that the absence of a consultation with the PSC on the third round has not caused any prejudice to the respondent. Therefore, on that ground, the order cannot be interfered with. 8. The grievance of the petitioner regarding absence of personal hearing also is not tenable. There is no rule of law, which says that hearing should always be by words of mouth. It can be in the form of consideration of the representation also. In this case, the respondent was given opportunity of being heard twice and decisions were always taken, considering his WA No.1399/2006 - 13 - representations. Therefore, the absence of personal hearing canvassed by the respondent will not, in any way, vitiate the impugned order. The complaint that the respondent was not told of the report of the Accountant General and he was not given a chance to represent, also cannot be accepted. The Accountant General was called upon only to suggest the amount that may be recovered from the monthly pension of the respondent, so that the same amount that would have been recovered under Ext.P5 could be withheld. The respondent does not have a case that as a result of the recovery ordered under Ext.P8, he has suffered a loss greater than that he would have suffered under Ext.P5. 9. The learned counsel raised serious objections against the last part of Ext.P8 order, wherein it is stated that the disciplinary action is finalised. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows: “Government also order that an amount of Rs.1,820/- [Rupees thousand eight hundred and twenty only] shall be withheld from the monthly pension of Sri.Samuel Mathew Parakkat for 60 WA No.1399/2006 **==> picture [33 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** months under Rule 3 of KSR Part III considering the grave misconduct of the Officer proved in the enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Tribunal. The disciplinary action initiated against Sri.Samuel Mathew Parakkat is finalised accordingly.” Pointing out the last sentence, it is submitted that this cannot be treated as an order under Rule 3. In this context, we think, it is fruitful to quote Rule 3 of Part III of the KSR. Rule 3 reads as follows: “3. The Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it whether permanently or for a specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if in a departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service; including service rendered upon reemployment after retirement. Provided that - (a) such departmental proceeding, if instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall after the final retirement of the employee, be WA No.1399/2006 - 15 - deemed to be a proceeding under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service; (b) such departmental proceeding, if not instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment; (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government; (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the employee during his service; (c) No such judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the employee was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted, save with the sanction of the Government, in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than four years before such institution. (d) the Public Service Commission shall be consulted before final orders are passed. WA No.1399/2006 - 16 - Explanation:- For the purpose of this rule- (a) a departmental proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the employee or pensioner or if the employee has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and (b) a judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted- (i) in the case of a criminal proceeding on the date on which the complaint or report of police officer on which the Magistrate takes cognizance is made; and (ii) in the case of a civil proceeding, on the date of presentation of the plaint in the Court. Note 1: As soon as proceedings of the nature referred to in this rule are instituted the authority which institutes such proceedings should without delay intimate the fact to the Audit Officer. The amount of pension withheld under this rule should not ordinarily exceed one-third of the pension originally sanctioned. In fixing the amount of pension to be so withheld, regard should be had to the consideration whether the amount of the pension left to the pensioner in any case would be adequate for his maintenance. WA No.1399/2006 - 17 - Note 2: The word 'pension' used in this rule does not include death-cum-retirement gratuity. Liabilities fixed against an employee or pensioner can be recovered from the death-cum-retirement gratuity payable to him without the departmental/judicial proceedings referred to in this rule, but after giving the employee or pensioner concerned a reasonable opportunity to explain. Note 3: The liabilities of an employee should be quantified either before or after retirement and intimated to him before retirement if possible or after retirement within a period of three years on becoming pensioner. The liabilities of a pensioner should be quantified and intimated to him.” According to the learned counsel, the culmination of a proceeding under Rule 3 cannot be treated as the finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings. We think, it is an objection raised on form and not on substance. What is meant by the disciplinary authority is that the proceedings against the respondent have been finalised. The objection that there cannot be any punishment under Rule 3 and it can only be under Rule 11 read with Rule 15 of the KCS (CC&A) Rules cannot be WA No.1399/2006 - 18 - accepted, in view of the Full Bench Decision of this Court in **Raveendran Nair v. State of Kerala** [2007(1) KLT 605 (FB)]. In the said decision, the Full Bench has repeatedly mentioned about the reduction of pension under Rule 3 as imposition of a punishment or penalty. So, in common parlance and in judicial parlance also the action under Rule 3 is described as imposition of a punishment, though strictly the words of the rule may not justify such a description. So, by saying that the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent have been finalised, we find no prejudice has been caused to him. The said objection taken is only a technical objection. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Government have made a passing reference that the conduct of the respondent is proved to be a grave misconduct. The order does not speak of the reasons for entering such a finding. The Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules speak of minor penalties and major penalties. It does not speak of minor misconduct or major misconduct or grave misconduct. In this case, without giving any reasons, the WA No.1399/2006 - 19 - Government have simply said that the respondent was found guilty of grave misconduct, it is submitted. We have already quoted the three charges levelled against the respondent. The Vigilance Tribunal has found them proved. The Government have accepted those findings also. Having regard to the nature of the allegations proved against him, if the Government describes the misconduct committed by him as a grave misconduct, the same cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary. In this case, even though the impugned order does not give reasons, the facts proved against the respondent would definitely show that the misconduct found to be committed by him is a grave misconduct. That view cannot be described as perverse or something, which no man in his senses will take. So, the contention cannot be accepted. In view of the above position, we feel that the interference made by the learned Single Judge with the impugned order Ext.P8 is plainly unjustified. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is reversed and the Writ WA No.1399/2006 - 20 - Petition is dismissed. **K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge.** **C.T.Ravikumar, Judge.** **nm.**