SREELATHA SUKUMAR Vs. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is stated to have retired from the services of the first respondent-- Kerala Financial Corporation, on 31.03.2020 and she has approached this Court seeking a direction to the said Corporation to release her terminal benefits, including Gratuity and Provident Fund, along with interest at the rate of 12%, from the date it became due, until it is actually paid.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner--Sri.P.Haridas submitted that his client's request for release of terminal benefits has been replied to by the Corporation through Exts.P7, P8, P10 and P11, wherein, they have been insisted that she should execute a bond, agreeing to repay any liability that may be found against her. The learned counsel asserts that the petitioner had no liability fixed against her until the date of her retirement, but concedes that a couple of weeks before she superannuated, she was served with a memo of charges, dated 05.03.2020, asking to show-cause why disciplinary action should not be initiated against her, allegedly for having adjusted amounts into certain loan accounts, without proper authorization.

(3.) The petitioner says that the allegations in the charge memo are completely untenable and that, in any event of the matter, once his client had retired from the services of the first respondent on 31.03.2020, in the absence of specific provisions in the applicable Rules and Regulations permitting continuation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement, all proceedings pursuant thereto would have to be legally ceased.