Allowed

A.B.Radhamani Amma v. Khadi & Village Industries Board

Kerala HC1 Apr 2016WP(C)/18150/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Learned Judge allowed this writ petition and set aside notices issued by the respondent to recover alleged losses from the petitioner's pension, holding that the remedy of initiating civil action under Rule 3 Part III KSR for misconduct during her tenure had not been pursued within the limitation period post-retirement.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed. Notices challenging recovery of amounts from the petitioner's pension is set aside. It is declared that no recovery can be proceeded against the petitioner.

A.B.Radhamani Amma Vs Khadi & Village… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:-

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2016/12TH CHAITHRA, 1938

¶5

W.P.(C).No.18150 of 2006 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):-

¶7

A.B.RADHAMANI AMMA, RETIRED DEPUTY DIRECTOR, KERALA KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,

¶8

NOW RESIDING AT `SARAS', AYMANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):-

¶11

KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

BY SRI.V.V.JOSHI, SC, KHADI BOARD.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶14

W.P.(C) NO.18150 OF 2006-I

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶17

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.KB-10244/03/E1(A) DATED 22.12.2003 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 12.1.2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3	TRUE COP0Y OF ORDER DT.29.7.2005 OF THE LOK AYUKTA IN COMPLAINT NO.1330/2004.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KB-10244/03/E1(A) DATED 7.9.2005 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KB.422/03/A11 DT.9.9.2005 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.KB.10244/03/E1(A)/L DATED 18.3.2006 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P7.	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT.4.4.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.
EXT.P8	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KB.10244/03/E1(A) DATED 16.6.2006 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶18

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

NIL.

vku/

[ true copy ]

K. Vinod Chandran, J --------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.18150 of 2006-I

¶23

¶24

Dated this the 01^st day of April, 2016

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The petitioner retired as Deputy Director from the respondent-Board on 30.06.2003. On retirement, the petitioner was disbursed only the pension and commuted value of pension and the respondent withheld the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity [for brevity “DCRG”]. The petitioner, after retirement, was issued with notice at Exhibit P1 dated 22.12.2003, alleging that when she continued as Managing Director of All Kerala Rubber Industries Federation [hereinafter referred to as “Federation”], loss was caused to the Federation to the tune of Rs.2,97,619.60, which was sought to be recovered from the DCRG.

¶27

The petitioner gave an explanation at Exhibit P2. However, no proceedings were taken against the petitioner to compute the loss and fix responsibility. Nor was the DCRG released. The petitioner, hence, approached the Lok Ayukta, which complaint in 2004 was disposed of by Exhibit P3. The Lok Ayukta found the

¶28

WP(C) No.18150 of 2006 - 2 -

¶29

withholding of the DCRG to be unsustainable. The entire DCRG amounts were directed to be paid. Liberty of the respondent to proceed against the petitioner under Rule 3 Part III of Kerala Service Rules [for brevity “KSR”] was preserved. Pursuant to the order of the Lok Ayukta, the DCRG were sanctioned as per Exhibit P4 and disbursed as per Exhibit P5.

¶30

A further notice was issued at Exhibit P6, threatening recovery of the amounts alleged as loss caused to the Federation, from the pension and such orders were passed at Exhibit P8. The petitioner, by the above writ petition, challenge Exhibits P6 and P8, which were mere reiteration of Exhibit P1 notice. Here it is to be noticed that the respondent had not taken any action under Rule 3 Part III KSR. It is also to be noticed that in Exhibit P4, while sanctioning the DCRG, the respondent themselves had made it specific that, civil remedy would be invoked under Rule 3 Part III KSR.

¶31

The petitioner had retired in the year 2003 and proceedings were taken only after retirement. The respondent-Board definitely had a remedy by way of initiating civil action against the petitioner as provided under Rule 3 Part III KSR. It is not attempted. It

¶32

WP(C) No.18150 of 2006 - 3 -

¶33

is not even indicated what was the period in which the petitioner was continued as Managing Director of the Federation and whether the same was within the four year period as provided under Rule 3 Part III KSR. Though there was an interim order of stay of recovery of amounts as per Exhibit P8, that would not have stopped the respondent-Board from initiating civil proceedings, within time. As of now, the respondent-Board would not be entitled to initiate civil proceedings, since the same would be hit by limitation. In such

¶34

circumstances, the writ petition has to be allowed, setting aside Exhibits P6 and P8. It is declared that no recovery on the allegations raised in Exhibits P6 and P8 can be proceeded against the petitioner.

¶35

The writ petition is allowed. No costs.

¶36

Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶37

vku/-

¶38

[ true copy ]

A.B.Radhamani Amma v. Khadi & Village Industries Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.B.Radhamani Amma v. Khadi & Village Industries Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shajahan E Vs R Rajesekharan Nair

Smt.M.Lalitha Vs P.a.Cheriya Hassan Haji

Manager,St.Thomas Nursery Vs Asst.Educational Officer

S.K.Nirmala Vs the Kerala State Warehousing Corpn.

Santhi.M.P. Vs the Dist.Educational Officer

Nisanth Vs Travancore Devaswom Board