High Court Kerala High Court

P.N.Sasidharan vs Kerala State Housing Board on 14 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
P.N.Sasidharan vs Kerala State Housing Board on 14 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 18509 of 2009(G)


1. P.N.SASIDHARAN, PLOT NO.50,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE HOUSING

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.MANIMOHAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SC KSHB, TVM

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :14/01/2010

 O R D E R
                     K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J
                       ...........................................
                   WP(C).NO. 18509                     OF 2009
                      ............................................
       DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2010

                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a retired Executive Engineer from the Thrissur

Division of the first respondent, KSHB. When he was an Executive

Engineer at Palakkad Division office, he was issued a memo of charges

dated 7.2.2003 alleging that he had failed to submit revised estimate

rates for approval as per the PWD manual, in respect of one of the

schemes that was being implemented. Thereby, it was alleged that he

had caused financial loss to the Board. The complaint of the petitioner

is that after more than four years of his submitting his defence

statement and long after his retirement, the disciplinary proceedings

were continued. Finally, as per Ext.P10 dated 6.4.2009, a penalty of

Censure was imposed on him under Rule 11 of the Kerala Civil Service

(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. The said

proceedings are under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The issue raised is squarely covered by the dictum of this

court in Xavier V. KSEB(1979 KLT 80), wherein it has been held that

Wpc 18509/09 2

imposition of punishment on an employee after his retirement and after

ceasing of the master-servant relationship is unsustainable and

unfounded. In view of the above decision, Ext.P10 is unsustainable and

the same is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is accordingly

allowed. No costs.

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE

lgk