Kerala High Court
Kerala State Housing Board vs K. Karuppachamy on 23 August, 2025
WA NO.1870/2025 1
2025:KER:64070
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
SATURDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 1ST BHADRA, 1947
WA NO.1870 OF 2025
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.31040/2017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE SECRETARY,
KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE CHAIRMAN,
KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADV SRI.K.P.MADHU
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
K. KARUPPACHAMY,
AGED 56 YEARS
ROHINI HOUSE, INDIRA NAGAR COLONY,
KALLEPULLY, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678005
BY ADV.SRI.V.VARGHESE
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO.1870/2025 2
2025:KER:64070
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2025
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated
22.11.2024 in W.P.(C) No.31040 of 2017 of the learned Single
Judge. Appellants were the respondents in the said W.P.(C).
2. The Writ Petition had been filed by the 1 st respondent, who
had retired from the services of the appellants, challenging the
disciplinary proceedings concluded against him, as well as the
sanctioning of pension excluding the period from 18.04.2001 to
01.02.2005, terming that the said period as not qualifying for
pension as he was under suspension. He filed the W.P.(C) seeking
the following reliefs :
"i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or
order quashing Exhibits P2, P3, P4, P6, P12, P13 & P15 of the
respondents as they are illegal and without jurisdiction ;
ii) To declare that Exhibit P15 pension payment order reducing
the service period of the petitioner is unsustainable due to the
quashment of Exhibit P14 order of the 2 nd respondent by
Exhibit P7 judgment which has attained finality ;
iii) to direct the respondents to release the withheld retirement
2025:KER:64070
benefit of the petitioner without further delay as in the case of
other similarly situated persons who have already been granted
such benefits ;
iv) To issue such other reliefs to this petitioner as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of this case."
3. The learned Single Judge allowed the W.P.(C) and set
aside Exhibits P3, P6 and P13 and directed the appellant to modify
Exhibit P15 as directed in the judgment. Further holding that since
there was no proper intimation of the ultimate proceedings
quantifying the liability of the respondent, and no earlier notice
before finalisation of Exhibit R2(a) by which his liability was
purportedly quantified, it was held that Exhibit R2(a) cannot be
proceeded with against the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the same,
the Housing Board has preferred this appeal.
4. Heard Sri.K.P.Madhu, Advocate for the appellants and
Sri.V.Varghese, Advocate for the respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the
judgment of the learned Single Judge has been rendered
overlooking the relevant facts and law and is not sustainable. It is
contended that the finding of the learned Single Judge that no penal
2025:KER:64070
action can be taken after the date of retirement unless a specific
allegation has been proved after the enquiry is flawed. It is
contended that since disciplinary proceedings had been initiated
while the respondent was in service, Rules allow the proceedings
initiated before the retirement to be continued. It is contended that
the learned Single Judge erred in setting aside Exhibits P3 and P6
without fully appreciating the merits of the disciplinary proceedings
and the orders rendered. He further submits that Exhibit P9 which
envisaged a de novo enquiry was not properly appreciated by the
learned Single Judge. The learned counsel contested the
correctness of the finding of the learned Single Judge that there had
been no prior notice before finalisation of Exhibit R2(a) as
misplaced. It is submitted that Exhibit R2(a) in itself is a
communication of quantified liability which serves as the necessary
intimation under Note 3 of Rule 3 of Part III KSR. It is contended
that the learned Single Judge ought to have recognised Exhibit
R2(a) as the steps towards finalising the liability. It is thus prayed by
the learned counsel that the judgment of the learned Single Judge
may be set aside.
6. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the
2025:KER:64070
respondent submitted that there is no cause or reason to interfere
with the judgment of the learned Single Judge insofar as the same
has been validly rendered. He submits that nothing has been
produced to show that the prior notice requirement before the
issuance of Exhibit R2(a) had been complied with. For the said
reason by itself, the proceedings initiated against the respondent are
unsustainable in law. He thus sought to dismiss the Writ Appeal.
7. We have heard both sides in detail and have considered
the contentions put forth. Concerning Exhibit P3, which is an
appellate order, we note that the learned Single Judge had taken
note of the fact that the same had been issued under Exhibit P2,
which in turn had imposed the penalty on him after his retirement on
31.07.2015. The finding of the learned Judge that the fact that the
petitioner had already retired debars the appellant Board from
imposing a penalty on him by the provisions of Rule 3 of Part III of
Kerala Service Rules, has not been controverted. Thus the finding
that Exhibit P3 cannot be sustained as arrived at by the learned
Single Judge calls for no interference. The learned Single Judge had
validly explained his finding regarding the unsustainability of Exhibit
P6 by explaining in detail and finally holding that Exhibit P9 de novo
2025:KER:64070
inquiry report, which was the prequel to the same, had not proved
any specific allegation against the accused. As regards the finding
that Exhibit P13, which confirmed the findings in Exhibit P11 as
unsustainable, the learned Single Judge had examined the relevant
orders as well as the enquiry report, and concluded that it had not
been in dispute that the first respondent was not the loan-
sanctioning authority. Since the loan which was the subject matter of
enquiry, was sanctioned by a different officer, it was concluded by
the learned Single Judge that the ultimate findings in Exhibit P11,
which had been confirmed by the appellate authority vide Exhibit
P13 cannot be sustained. It is uncontroverted that before the
issuance of Exhibit R2(a) which is dated 27.06.2017, no notice had
been issued. Thus, the finalisation as seen carried out under Exhibit
R2(a) had been done without prior notice to the respondent. No
quantification of the alleged loss under 12 loan cases had been
provided, and an amount of Rs.2,85,000/- had been unilaterally
imposed on the 1st respondent. Given the same, the finding of the
learned Single Judge that the disciplinary proceedings initiated
against the 1st respondent are not sustainable is proper and valid.
We find merit in the findings of the learned Single Judge that Exhibit
2025:KER:64070
R2 (a) does not reveal that there was an earlier notice, and the said
document by itself is a positive direction by which liabilities have
been fixed upon the petitioner. It was thus concluded that Exhibit R2
(a) cannot be taken as a final determination in tune with the
provisions of Note 2 Rule 3 of Part III of KSR. Though the learned
counsel for the appellant had strenuously contended that the Exhibit
P7(c) show cause notice dated 25.04.2017 had been issued to the
1st respondent before Exhibit R2(a), which is dated 27.06.2017, we
find that the latter document does not bear a reference to the former.
We thus find no reason to interfere with the said judgment of the
learned Single Judge.
The Writ Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
