BASKARAN PILLAI Vs. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was served with a memo of charges Ext. P-1 dated June 15, 1994. Later, by Ext. P-2 order dated September 8, 1994 he was suspended from service. Thereafter Ext. P-3 memo of charges dated January 18, 1995 was served on him. The petitioner filed the explanation. An enquiry was also conducted. Thereafter, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on May 31, 1995 Ext. P-5 evidences the above fact. Subsequently, Ext. P-6 dated August 24, 1995 was passed as the final order passed in the disciplinary proceedings. By Ext. P-6, the petitioner was compulsorily retired with effect from the date of his suspension.

(2.) THOUGH the Original Petition was filed initially for disbursement of pensionary benefits and also for a direction to drop the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner on account of the fact that he retired after passing of Ext. P-6 order the petitioner has amended the Original Petition challenging Ext. P-6 order.

(3.) EXT. P-6 order is challenged solely on the basis of lack of competency on the part of the respondents to pass an order of compulsory retirement after the date of superannuation of the petitioner. When an employee retires from service, the master and servant relationship between the employer and employee ceases. Thereafter the master has no authority to suspend the employees or to take any disciplinary action. That is why in the Kerala Service Rules it was specifically provided in Part II R. 3 that any disciplinary/ departmental action taken while employee is in service can be continued after his date of superannuation. But the above proceedings can only culminate in an order by which recovery can be ordered from his pension. It cannot end in any punishment enumerated in the Kerala Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960.