Anil Kumar v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Surendra Mohan
Judgment Date: 2012-02-24
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation (Ext. P6) in accordance with law and in light of the decision in Sudheer v. K.S.R.T.C, and to pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Final Disposition: Petition disposed with directions to the authorities to consider Ext. P6 and pass orders within four weeks; no reinstatement order issued at this stage.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Anil Kumar, S/o. Kumaran Nair, Raj Bhavan, V.K.K.Nagar, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram

Respondents

Kerala State Electricity Board, represented by its Secretary, Vyudyithi Bhavan, Pattom P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 004
Chairman, Kerala State Electricity Board, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 004
Chief Engineer (H.R.M.), Kerala State Electricity Board, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 004

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. A. Rajasimhan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. K.S. Anil, S.C., KSEB

Case Synopsis & Summary

Anil Kumar, an Overseer employed by the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) under sports quota, challenged a criminal conviction for bigamy and the accompanying sentence, which had been upheld by the appellate court. The JFCM Neyyattinkara convicted him in CC No. 824/2005; the Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, dismissed his criminal appeal in 2009. The petitioner moved a writ petition, which led to suspending the conviction and sentence by an order dated 3-1-2012 (Crl. M.A.38/2012) due to serious service consequences if the conviction remained in force. Nevertheless, Ext. P5 (29-10-2011) shows the petitioner’s removal from service. The petitioner contends Ext. P5 is unsustainable in light of Ext. P4’s suspension and cites Sudheer v. K.S.R.T.C to underscore that dismissal/removal after criminal conviction must be fair, just, and reasonable, and not automatic. The court directs the second respondent to consider Ext. P6 (the petitioner’s representation) in accordance with law and the Sudheer decision, and to pass appropriate orders within four weeks. The judgment thus focuses on reconciling suspension with removal, balancing service interests against criminal conduct, and directs further action by the authorities rather than immediate reinstatement.

Provisions of Law Cited

Rule 18 (General Rules) — second provisoGeneral Rules — second proviso to R.18

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioner contends that Ext. P5 (removal) is unsustainable because the conviction and sentence were suspended by Ext. P4 (order dated 3-1-2012). He argues that Ext. P6 representation should be considered and that, in light of Sudheer v. K.S.R.T.C (2004(3) KLT 217), a government servant cannot be automatically dismissed where a conviction is stayed or suspended, and that any action must be fair, just, and reasonable. He seeks reinstatement or appropriate relief by the second respondent.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents’ arguments are not elaborated in the judgment. The pleadings indicate reliance on the conviction and the removal action (Ext. P5). The court, however, bases its ruling on legal principles cited by the petitioner and directs consideration of Ext. P6 under law, as contextualized by Sudheer.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sudheer v. K.S.R.T.C	2004(3) KLT 217	Positive	Cited for the proposition that, while a government servant convicted of a criminal charge may face dismissal/removal under the second proviso to Rule 18 of the General Rules, such action must be fair, just, and reasonable, and that suspension or stay of conviction can impact the application of the provision.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/5TH PHALGUNA 1933** ## **WP(C).No. 4415 of 2012 (B)** **--------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S) : ----------------------** **ANIL KUMAR, S/O. KUMARAN NAIR, RAJI BHAVAN, V.K.K.NAGAR, PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADV. SRI. A. RAJASIMHAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S) :** **------------------------** **1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.** **2. CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 004.** **3. CHIEF ENGINEER (H.R.M.), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.** **BY ADV. SRI. K.S.ANIL, S.C., KSEB** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **NS** ## **WP(C).No. 4415 of 2012** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :** - **EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO.824/05 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, NEYYATTINKARA.** - **EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A.NO.177/09 OF THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE.** - **EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.A.NO.38 OF 2012 IN CRL.R.P.NO. 14/2012.** - **EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.29.10.2011.** - **EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.16.1.2012.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL** ## **/ TRUE COPY /** **NS** **P.A. TO JUEGE** **K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------W.P(C) NO: 4415 OF 2012 ----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 24[th] February, 2012.** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is working as an Overseer in the service of the first respondent - Board. According to the petitioner, he is a sportsman who had got an appointment in the sports quota. While the petitioner was so working his former wife filed a criminal complaint against him alleging the offence of bigamy. The Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court I, Neyyattinkara as per judgment in CC 824/2005 found the petitioner guilty of the offence, convicted and sentenced him. 2. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed on him, the petitioner challenged the same in criminal appeal 177/2009. However, the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the judgment of the lower appellate court in criminal revision petition 14/2012 before this Court, which is pending. WPC 4415/2012 2 3. As per order dated 3-1-2012 in Crl. M.A.38/2012, this Court has suspended both the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner. The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner has been suspended after taking note of the serious consequences that are likely to follow with respect to the service of the petitioner, if the conviction and sentence were not suspended. Therefore, finding that this is a fit case in which the conviction and sentence requires to be suspended, this Court has granted such suspension. In view of the above, according to the petitioner, he is entitled to continue in service without any hindrance. However, as per Ext.P5 order dated 29-10-2011 the petitioner has been removed from service. 4. According to the counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P5 is unsustainable and liable to be set aside for the reason that the conviction and sentence against the petitioner has been suspended by Ext.P4. Adverting to a similar situation this Court has summed up the legal position in **Sudheer v. K.S.R.T.C {2004(3) KLT 217}** , in paragraph 20 as follows:- “20. To sum up: (1) When a Government servant is convicted on a criminal charge by a Criminal Court and sentenced to imprisonment or fine or with both, the appointing WPC 4415/2012 3 authority shall invoke the second proviso to R.18 of the General Rules to dismiss or remove him service. (2) The dismissal/removal in such circumstances is on the ground of the conduct which has led to the conviction on the criminal charge by the Criminal Court. (3) However, dismissal or removal of a Government servant in exercise of the power under the second proviso to R.18 of the General Rules does not automatically follow a conviction on a criminal charge by a criminal court followed by sentence of imprisonment or fine or with both. (4) Since the dismissal or removal is thus on the ground of conduct which led to the conviction on the criminal charge by the Criminal Court, the power of dismissal/removal should be exercised fairly, justly and reasonably, but _ex parte._ (5) A Government servant proceeded against under the second proviso to R.18 for dismissal/removal from service on the ground of conduct which led to the conviction on a criminal charge by the Criminal Court is not entitled to notice and hearing. (6) It is not necessary to consult the Public Service Commission while dismissing/removing a Government servant on the ground of the conduct which led to his conviction on a criminal charge by the Criminal Court. (7) Merely because there is a general order of stay WPC 4415/2012 4 of operation of the judgment in a criminal case in which there is conviction of a Government servant on a criminal charge by a Criminal Court followed by sentence of imprisonment or fine or with both, there is no escape from the operation of the second proviso to R.18, unless the appellate or revisional Court has made a specific reference to the consequences which would otherwise follow if the conviction is stayed. (8) In case in an appeal or revision the Court on a specific request regarding the ramifications which would follow if the conviction is not suspended and if the Court applying its mind to the consequences has stayed the conviction apart from sentence, then the Government servant shall not be dismissed or removed from service under the second proviso to R.18. (9) Where conviction is on summary trial for petty offences and where the sentence is for a fine upto Rs.2,000-, the second proviso to R.18 shall not be invoked for dismissing or removing the Government servant.” In view of the above dictum, the counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled to be taken back in service. The petitioner has already submitted Ext.P6 representation which is pending before the second respondent. WPC 4415/2012 5 5. Since Ext.P6 is pending consideration of the second respondent, it is only appropriate that the said authority considers the entire issue and takes a decision thereon in accordance with law. 6. This writ petition is in the above circumstances disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner evidenced herein by Ext.P6 in accordance with law and in the light of the decision reported in 2004(3) KLT 217 and Ext.P4 order of this Court and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj /True copy/ P.S.to Judge WPC 4415/2012 6