P C ANNAKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Original Petition was filed by the petitioner while she was working as a Senior Superintendent and on deputation to Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. She had commenced service as a Lower Division Clerk in the Revenue Department in 1961 and on the formation of the Civil Supplies Department in 1975, had opted for coming over to the said Department. On 5.7.1983 she had been promoted as Taluk Supply Officer.

(2.) The history sheet further shows that the petitioner had been placed under suspension on 25.2.1992 and was served with a Memo of Charges for grave irregularities. She had been reinstated in service on 1.3.1993, but the disciplinary proceedings continued. Ultimately, by order dated 4.5.1994, a copy of which is produced as Ext. P6, she was awarded with a punishment of censure. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies, in the said order, had held that the charges against the petitioner stood proved beyond doubt, but since she was under suspension for more than one year, a lenient view was taken in the matter. By separate proceedings dated 3.1.1995, the period of suspension was treated as on duty for the purpose of counting of service for the pensionary benefits and leave. What she lost in the meanwhile was opportunity for career prospects; her claims were consistently overlooked for promotion.

(3.) Now the petitioner had retired from service. Obviously her complaint is that because of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings her claim for promotion as District Supply Officer was jeopardised. It is claimed that she was entitled to be promoted as District Supply Officer and had to be adequately compensated by recognising her right for notional promotion from the date her immediate junior was promoted, and for monetary benefits arising from such promotion. Further claim is that this should reflect in her retirement benefits, including pension.