K ALICE AMMA Vs. KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER retired from service on 30.9.00. She is aggrieved by Ext.P3 whereby an amount of Rs. 44,000/- has been withheld from the gratuity. The recovery is defended contending that even before her retirement, Ext.R1(a) Notice dated 26.7.99 had been issued to the petitioner for which Ext.R1(b) reply was also furnished on 3.8.99. Sri. Manhu, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that under Regulation 110 of the KSIDCO staff regulations, damage or loss caused due to the negligence or carelessness is a misconduct and hence the disciplinary action is permissible. I have no quarrel with that proposition. But the simple question is whether the disciplinary action for any such misconduct had been taken against the petitioner prior to her retirement. There can be no dispute that after retirement no disciplinary action is permissible. A reading of Ext.R1(a) notice would show that the petitioner was issued only a show cause notice requesting to submit her explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken. Ext.R1(b) is the reply. Thereafter nothing is seen in the matter. The only proceedings issued is Ext.P3, after the retirement. Since no disciplinary action has been taken against the petitioner prior to her retirement, no recovery is permissible. Ext.P3 to the extent of recovery is accordingly quashed. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to disburse the withheld amounts to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner. The original petition is disposed of as above.