K. George Joseph, Administrative Member:
1. The applicant was charge sheeted under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, on 29.02.1996 for various financial irregularities. The enquiring authority held that the charges against him were proved. After following due procedure, the penalty of removal from service was imposed on the applicant on 04.07.1997 by the disciplinary authority, which was confirmed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority. The O.A. No.678/2006 filed by the applicant against the order of removal from service was disposed of with a direction to the revisional authority to reconsider the decision regarding quantum of punishment after giving personal hearing to the applicant. The said order was challenged by the respondents in Writ Petition (C) No. 4084 of 2009 which was disposed of by Hon'ble High Court of Kerala setting aside the order of this Tribunal, to the extent it makes observations against the punishment imposed, with a view to provide the revisional authority sufficient opportunity to reconsider the entire case on its merits and decide de novo, including the quantum of penalty, if any, to be imposed. In compliance, the 4th respondent reconsidered the case of the applicant and confirmed the penalty of removal from service imposed on the applicant, vide Annexure A-4 order dated 23.04.2012. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this O.A for the following reliefs:
(i) Call for the records leading to A4 and quash and set aside the same and treat the applicant having continued in service till superannuation and give him all consequential benefits, including back wages;
(ii)Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit to grant; and
(iii)Grant the cost of this Original Application.
2. The applicant submitted that the direction of this Tribunal to reconsider the penalty of removal from service, as it was disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct, was not considered by the respondents while passing the impugned order. The criminal proceedings against the applicant concluded that he was not guilty of alleged offence and he was acquitted. The findings of the enquiring authority was not based on valid evidence. The disciplinary authority and the appellate authority were prejudiced against him.
3. In the reply statement, the respondents submitted that the revisional authority had considered the review petition of the applicant taking into account the findings of the enquiry conducted as per the prescribed procedure, the documentary evidence and also the explanation given by the applicant during the personal hearing. The penalty of removal from service was confirmed after considering the entire case records and the explanation given by the applicant during personal hearing. The Tribunal had upheld the proceedings of the disciplinary authority and held that those proceedings are in terms of the relevant statutory rules. Regarding the quantum of punishment, the applicant had been held liable for shortage of office cash even prior to occurrence of the incidents mentioned in the memo of charges. The applicant was given reasonable opportunity to prove his innocence. The only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of charges against the delinquent officer. The settled position of law is that the wisdom of the disciplinary authority cannot be set aside unless the wisdom is perverse. The scope of review by judicial authority is very limited. Interference by the Court is not permissible unless the order is contrary to law, relevant factors are not considered or irrelevant factors considered to arrive at a decision which no reasonable person could have taken. The respondents have relied on the decision of this Bench dated 13.03.2006 in O.A. No.789/2003.
4. In the rejoinder statement, the applicant submitted that a retired employee normally cannot be subjected to the penalty of removal from service. The applicant had retired from service on 28.04.2002 and is entitled to draw his regular pension from that day. He is also entitled to get his salary and service benefits from 04.07.1997 to 28.04.2002. The applicant relied on the judgements of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala reported in 1979 KLT 80 (F.B) and 2001 (3) KLT 929 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2007 (9) SCC 15.
5. In the additional reply statement filed by the respondents, it was submitted that the order of penalty as well as the appellate authority's order were not at all touched upon by the Tribunal and therefore, the contention of the applicant that he is deemed to be continued in service till retirement and that he is entitled to get his salary and other benefits from 04.07.1997 to 28.04.2002 is absolutely baseless and devoid of merits. He was given an opportunity of personal hearing on 05.08.2010 as per the Court order. Disciplinary proceedings against the applicant were already completed and finalised and the final order of removal from service was issued on 04.07.1997. The appeal and the revision are only review of the original order and the decisions on it have their effect from the date of issue of the original order. In the case of the applicant, no charge sheet was issued and no disciplinary proceedings were held against him after retirement. There was no initiation or continuation of any disciplinary proceedings on the applicant after the order of this Tribunal. The direction of the Hon'ble High Court as per Annexure A-2 order was to reconsider the entire case on its merits and decide de novo, including the quantum of penalty to be imposed, after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the applicant.
6. We have heard Mr. Biju Martin, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Varghese P. Thomas, learned ACGSC for respondents and perused the records.
7. The enquiring authority had found the applicant guilty of charges framed against him, after following due procedure. The disciplinary authority also had followed due procedure and imposed the punishment of removal from service on the applicant. This order was confirmed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority. In O.A. No. 678/2006, this Tribunal held as under :
"10. The respondents have not denied the applicant's contention that the penalty has driven his family to the verge of starvation. They have also not rebutted the argument that the applicant had no previous record of misconduct. The reference to the decision in O.A. 1036/03 by this Tribunal has been considered by us. However, we are afraid that the facts are not comparable because in that case the misconduct was forgery whereas in the present case the proved misconduct is temporary misappropriation. In view of the mitigating circumstances as well as the past conduct of the applicant we are of the opinion that the penalty of removal from service is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. We consider it therefore appropriate to remand the matter to the Revision Authority to reconsider the decision regarding quantum of penalty, after giving a personal hearing to the applicant.
11. For the reasons sated above, the O.A. is partly allowed. The order by the Revision Authority dated 30.6.2005 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Revision Authority to consider the quantum of penalty afresh and pass appropriate orders after giving a personal hearing to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs."
8. This Tribunal did not set aside the departmental proceedings against the applicant. The order of the revisional authority was quashed for the purpose of reconsidering only the penalty afresh. However, in the Writ Petition (C) No. 4084/2009 challenging the above order of this Tribunal, Hon'ble High Court of Kerala held as under:
"For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed in part setting aside the impugned order to the extent it makes observations against the punishment imposed. This is being done to provide the revisional authority sufficient opportunity to reconsider the entire case on its merits and decide de novo, including on the quantum of penalty, if any, to be imposed. This shall, however, be done after providing the delinquent, the respondent herein, an opportunity of personal haring. Let this be done untrammeled by any observations in the impugned order or in this juegement. The time to do so is fixed as three months from now. The impugned order of the Tribunal will stand modified accordingly."
The direction of the Hon'ble High Court was to reconsider the entire case on its merits and decide de novo, including on the quantum of penalty, after providing the applicant an opportunity of personal hearing, untrammelled by any observations of this Tribunal or the Hon'ble High Court.
9. We find that the impugned order is a speaking order. All relevant aspects have been considered after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the applicant. We do no find any legal infirmity in the said order warranting interference by this Tribunal. The applicant was not exonerated in the enquiry proceedings against him. The contention of the applicant that he should be paid salary and other benefits from 04.07.1997 to 28.04.2002 and regular pension from 28.04.2002 is devoid of merit as no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him after retirement.
10. Lacking merit, the O.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs.