C PRAKASH CHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a retired Deputy Commissioner of Excise. He was the Deputy Commissioner of Narakkal Range at the time of the Vypeen Liquor Tragedy. In the prosecution proceedings initiated pursuant to that tragedy, the petitioner was also an accused for accepting bribe from the liquor contractors. However, the prosecution referred his case as a mistake of fact. In spite of the same, the Government decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. An enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Tribunal who submitted his report Ext. P1 wherein the petitioner was found guilty. On the basis of Ext.P1 report, Ext. P2 show cause memo was issued to the petitioner for imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement from service on the petitioner. Since the rules prescribe that before imposing punishment on the petitioner, the Kerala Public Service Commission has to be consulted, the matter was referred to the PSC. The PSC, after consideration of the report of the Vigilance Tribunal, came to the conclusion that the finding of the Tribunal was wholly based on the deposition of Mr. M.P. Augustine, who was one of the accused in the Vypeen Liquor Tragedy case convicted and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a find of Rs. 10,000/-. The PSC further noted that all the other witnesses examined by the Vigilance Tribunal to prove the case against the petitioner turned hostile and did not support the version of the said M.P. Augustine. Therefore, the PSC came to the conclusion that the petitioner could not have been found guilty on the tainted testimony of the said Mr. M.P. Augustine and advised that the petitioner be exonerated from the charges levelled against him. The advice of the PSC is contained in Ext. P3. Dissatisfied with the advice of the Commission, the Government again referred the matter to the PSC for re- O.P. No. 3965/1998. -: 2 :- consideration. By Ext. P4, the PSC reiterated their earlier advice to exonerate the petitioner.

(2.) In the meantime, the petitioner retired from service. Therefore, the proposed punishment of compulsory retirement from service could not be imposed on him. However, the Government by Ext. P5 order imposed on the petitioner the punishment of reduction of his pension by 1/3rd permanently under Rule 3 Part III of Kerala Service Rules. Against the same, the petitioner filed Ext. P6 inter alia contending that before issuing that order, the petitioner was not issued any show cause notice. In view of the said contention, the Government issued Ext. P7 show cause notice directing the petitioner to show cause why for the misconduct found to have been proved against him, his pension should not be reduced by 33 1/3% under Rule 3 Part III of KSR as punishment. Despite Ext. P8 objection filed by the petitioner, Ext. P9 order has been passed by the Government imposing on the petitioner the punishment of reduction of pension by 33 1/3% permanently with effect from the date of his retirement. Ext. P1 report of the Vigilance Tribunal and Ext. P9 order of the Government are under challenge in this original petition.

(3.) The petitioner raises several contentions against the impugned orders. First is that after retirement, there is no employer-employee relationship and going by the Supreme Court decisions on the subject, after severance of the employer-employee relationship, no punishment pursuant to disciplinary proceedings could be imposed on the petitioner. Second is that under Rule 3, reduction of pension can be imposed on the petitioner only if pecuniary loss is caused to the Government on account of the misconduct committed by the delinquent employee. He has also O.P. No. 3965/1998. -: 3 :- raised a contention that there is no provision in the Rules to issue a fresh show cause notice after issue of orders. He further contends that in any event, the findings in Ext. P1 as well as in Ext. P9 are perverse in so far as there was no reliable evidence whatsoever before the Vigilance Tribunal to find the petitioner guilty of the misconduct alleged against him.