While asking the competent authority to reconsider the issue of punishment imposed upon a retired postmaster, the Kerala High Court has held that once the employee had retired from service and for an incident alleged against him a day or two before such, punishment of 15% reduction from his pension for a period of one year would impose a large pecuniary constraint and detriment on him

The High Court was considering an appeal challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, whereby the Original Application filed against an order of punishment imposed against him was dismissed. The allegation against the petitioner was that he used discourteous and intemperate language in representations made against his superior officers.

The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji held, “We are persuaded as afore because, once the employee had retired from service and for an incident alleged against him a day or two before such, punishment of 15% reduction from his pension for a period of one year surely would impose a large pecuniary constraint and detriment on him. This is not to say that if the proven charges are grave enough, such punishment cannot be imposed, especially within the conspectus of Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules.”

Advocate K.V. Pavithran represented the Petitioner, while Deputy Solicitor General Of India O.M.Shalina represented the Respondent.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the petitioner was proceeded against departmentally a day or two before he retired from service. He had been proceeded against earlier and found guilty, leading to a punishment of censure or warning. According to the Bench, this has created a sense of disenchantment in him, which made him make representations containing the phrases and the words he had used.

The Bench was of the prima facie impression that the punishment was slightly disproportionate to the proven charges, and it would be justified to direct the competent Authority to reconsider that aspect, leading to an appropriate fresh order.

Thus, allowing the Original Petition and setting aside the judgment of the Tribunal only to the extent of the punishment imposed by it, the Bench passed a consequential direction to the competent Authority of the Government of India to reconsider the quantum of punishment ordered against the petitioner.

Cause Title: E.K. Narayanan v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:37705)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates K.V. Pavithran, Jayanandan Madayi Puthiyaveettil, Adarsh Kurian

Respondent: Deputy Solicitor General Of India O.M.Shalina, Standing Counsel Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil

Click here to read/download Order


Kerala High CourtJustice Devan RamachandranJustice Basant Balaji

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.