Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K. ALICE AMMA, RETIRED SENIOR versus KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K. ALICE AMMA, RETIRED SENIOR v. KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT - WP(C) No. 35673 of 2003(V) [2006] RD-KL 3538 (15 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 35673 of 2003(V)

1. K. ALICE AMMA, RETIRED SENIOR
... Petitioner

Vs

1. KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT
... Respondent

2. THE CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE

For Petitioner :SRI.JIKKU GEORGE JACOB

For Respondent :SRI.M.A.MANHU, SC, SIDCO

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

Dated :15/12/2006

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

W.P. (C). NO. 35673 OF 2003

Dated this the 15th day of December, 2006



J U D G M E N T

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 WPC NO.35673/03 Page numbers 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.

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE

vps WPC NO.35673/03 Page numbers

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE

OP NO.

JUDGMENT

15th DECEMBER, 2006


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.