Joseph Froid Peraira v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **TUESDAY ,THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 30TH MAGHA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER:** **JOSEPH FROID PERAIRA AGED 41 YEARS, SON OF LATE FRANCIS PERAIRA, OVERSEER (REMOVED FROM SERVICE), 66KV SUB STATION,NJARAKKAL, VYPINE, UNDER TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KALAMASSERY,RESIDING AT KALAVARAMPARAMBIL, 44/1074/B/5, N. KALOOR, POTTAKUZHY, KOCHI-682017.** **BY ADVS. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.R.S.ASWINI SANKAR SRI.G.RENJITH SRI.S.M.PRASANTH SRI.T.H.ARAVIND** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, PATTOM PALACE PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **2 THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, PATTOM PALACE PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.** - **3 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, PATTOM PALACE PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.** - **4 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (DISTRIBUTION CENTRAL) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682011.** **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** **2** **5 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682018.** **BY ADVS. SMT.ANEETHA A.G., SC, KSEB** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** **3** ## **J U D G M E N T** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The writ petitioner, who was a Lineman Grade-I in the 1[st] respondent-Kerala State Electricity Board, has filed this writ petition seeking to set aside Exts.P7 and P18 and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith with all consequential service benefits. 2. According to the petitioner, while he was working as Lineman Grade-I, Electrical Section Central, Ernakulam, he was proceeded against for alleged theft of electrical energy in June, 2006. The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 19.06.2006 and was served with Ext.P1 memo of charges dated 16.12.2006. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 reply to the memo of charges. However, a disciplinary enquiry was ordered, proceeded with and concluded. The petitioner was required to show-cause why he should not be imposed with a punishment of removal from service, as per Ext.P3. A copy of the enquiry report **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** **4** did not accompany Ext.P3 show-cause. Copy of the enquiry report was served on him only subsequently and that too, after the disciplinary authority arriving at a tentative decision to remove the petitioner from service, contends the petitioner. 3. The petitioner submitted reply to the showcause. After examining the reply, the Chief Engineer imposed a punishment of removal on the petitioner as per Ext.P7 proceedings dated 07.11.2014. The petitioner submitted Ext.P8 appeal to the Chairman. The Chairman, as per Ext.P9, rejected the appeal of the petitioner, but reduced the punishment to one of compulsory retirement. 4. Aggrieved by Ext.P9, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.27655/2015. A learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents to reconsider the appeal preferred by the petitioner, by specifically considering the case of the petitioner that no guilt can be established against the petitioner on the basis **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** **5** of the materials available. This Court directed the appellate authority to hear the petitioner and decide the issue. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of Ext.P13 judgment and the observations and directions contained therein, his appeal was rejected without considering any of the issues raised in the appeal, as per Ext.P14. Aggrieved by Ext.P14, the petitioner again approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.7049/2018. This Court, as per Ext.P16 judgment, found that the contentions of the petitioner urged before this Court and in the appeal memorandum were not at all considered by the appellate authority. The Chairman and Managing Director, KSEB was therefore, directed to pass orders afresh, after considering the appeal submitted by the petitioner and in tune with the observations in Ext.P13 judgment. 6. The petitioner thereupon submitted yet another representation by way of Ext.P17 appending a copy of Ext.P16 judgment. To the surprise of the petitioner, the **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** **6** appellate authority again rejected the appeal of the petitioner, as per Ext.P18, without considering any of the grounds urged by the petitioner and the directions of this Court contained in Ext.P16 judgment. The petitioner therefore, challenges Exts.P7 and 18 orders and seeks reinstatement in service. 7. The respondents appeared in the case, filed counter affidavit and contested the writ petition. According to the respondents, an inspection conducted by Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) in June, 2006 revealed the involvement of Sri.A.G.Dinesh, Senior Superintendent, KSEB and the petitioner, in illegal abstraction and abetting theft of electricity in the premises of various consumers. The preliminary enquiry disclosed that the petitioner conspired with the said Sri.A.G.Dinesh, Senior Superintendent, and tampered the energy metres of various consumers for illegal gratification. Therefore, disciplinary enquiry was conducted. The enquiry was conducted in **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** **7** accordance with the rules and regulations and strictly adhering to the principles of natural justice. In the enquiry, all charges levelled against the petitioner and Sri.A.G.Dinesh were proved. The misconduct of the petitioner was grave in nature and hence removal of the petitioner from service was proposed, in order to send a clear message to all employees of KSEB. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Chairman and Managing Director concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority, but taking a lenient view, reduced the punishment imposed on the petitioner to that of compulsory retirement. 8. The respondents stated that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was considered by the Chairman and the Managing Director strictly based on the directions of this Court in Ext.P13 and P16 judgments. There is no illegality in the appellate order. The appellate authority has applied his mind and has given reasons for his conclusions, **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** **8** contends the respondents. The petitioner has committed grave misconduct of theft of electrical energy for gaining illegal gratification. The petitioner does not deserve any sympathy and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. The crux of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner can be summarised as follows:(a) The show-cause notice of the disciplinary authority did not require the petitioner to explain as to why the enquiry report should not be accepted. Instead, the disciplinary authority concurred with the findings of the inquiry authority without hearing the petitioner and required the petitioner to show-cause why punishment of removal should not be imposed on the petitioner. This is a clear instance of bias. (b) The petitioner was not served with a copy of the enquiry report along with the show-cause. The petitioner was served with a copy of the enquiry report only **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** **9** subsequently on demand. This also shows the prejudice and bias of the disciplinary authority. (c) The material witnesses, who could have given evidence in respect of the incidents, were not examined. Instead, statements made by certain witnesses were admitted in evidence without examining the makers thereof and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine them. (d) The inquiry authority relied on certain undisclosed documents to arrive at the guilt of the petitioner. These documents were accepted by the inquiry authority and incorporated in the enquiry report, behind the back of the petitioner, without notice to the petitioner and without examining the authors thereof. This has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner's defence. (e) In fact, there is no specific charge against the petitioner in the memorandum of charges. The memo only alleges that petitioner colluded with the consumers to **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** **10** commit energy theft. The charges levelled against the petitioner are vague in nature and no disciplinary proceedings can be based thereon. (f) As per the rules and regulations relating to disciplinary proceedings followed by the KSEB, the inquiry authority and disciplinary authority have to enter into specific findings as regards each of the charges separately. The authorities have not entered into findings on each charge separately. This is a grave violation of the statutory regulations. (g) The statements of certain officials recorded and relied on to arrive at finding of guilt of the petitioner, were recorded when those officials were on leave. Apart from such doubtful statements, there is no material adduced in the enquiry to arrive at a finding of guilt of the petitioner. (h) The appellate authority had sought legal opinion from the legal advisers of KSEB, who had given definite opinion that the disciplinary proceedings against the **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** **11** petitioner cannot be sustained. The respondents were not justified in proceeding with the disciplinary action, in spite of the legal advice given by their own legal advisors. This also reveals the bias of the disciplinary authority. (i) The petitioner had pointed out all the above and other illegalities and irregularities in the conduct of disciplinary proceedings in the appeal submitted by him. In spite of the directions contained in two judgments of this Court, the appellate authority did not consider all the grounds urged by the petitioner in the appeal petition. The legality of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner should, therefore, be considered by this Court and orders impugned by the petitioner should be set aside, contends the counsel for the petitioner. 10. The learned Standing Counsel for the 1[st] respondent-KSEB strongly opposed the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel stated that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** **12** strictly following the KSEB Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1969. The Standing Counsel stated that as per Regulations 16(2) and 16(4), the disciplinary or other authority may for reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse the delinquent access to any documents, if in its opinion such documents are not strictly relevant to the case or it is not desirable in public interest to allow such access. Similarly, in view of Regulation 16(7), the inquiry authority has a discretion to decline examination of any witness on ground that his evidence is not relevant or material. The learned Standing Counsel relied on Regulation 16(8) to point out that the delinquent had a right to present to the inquiring authority a list of witnesses whom he desires to examine in his defence. The petitioner did not give any list of witnesses. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now contend that failure to examine certain witnesses has caused prejudice to him. 11. Referring to Regulation 16(12)(i)(a), the Standing **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** **13** Counsel argued that the disciplinary authority need to give reasons to arrive at a conclusion of the guilt of the delinquent only if he disagrees with the reasonings given by the inquiry authority. Similarly, Regulation 16(12)(i)(b) provides for issuance of notice stating the action proposed to be taken in regard to the delinquent and calling upon him to submit reply. Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel asserted, there is nothing wrong in the disciplinary authority indicating the proposed punishment to the delinquent and asking him to give reply. 12. The Standing Counsel pointed out that the inquiry authorities and disciplinary authorities under the 1[st] respondent-Board need not necessarily be legally trained persons and in fact, most of them are having engineering background. Therefore, the conduct of the inquiring authorities and disciplinary authorities has to be assessed taking into account this reality. Unless there is gross departure from the prescribed disciplinary regulations, no **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** **14** interference in the disciplinary proceedings shall be made. 13. The Standing Counsel argued that the petitioner has been found to have committed serious indiscipline by conniving with the consumers facilitating theft of electrical energy. The misconduct of the petitioner is not only grossly unethical, but it has drained the coffers of the Electricity Board. Such grave misconduct cannot be tolerated by any employer. 14. The Standing Counsel submitted that all opportunities of defending the charges were extended to the petitioner. The petitioner was permitted to peruse the documents whenever he sought such permission. The petitioner was permitted to cross-examine every witnesses, who have been examined in the inquiry. The petitioner has been heard before imposition of penalty. Therefore, there is no denial of natural justice as contended by the petitioner. As regards the finding of guilt by the inquiry authority and the disciplinary authority, the Standing Counsel argued that **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** **15** those findings were arrived at based on substantial evidence made available during the enquiry. The petitioner can have, therefore, no legal grievance. The Standing Counsel further relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in _**Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others v. B.Karunakar and others**_ [(1993) 4 SCC 727] to contend that non-furnishing of inquiry report need not result in automatic acquittal of a delinquent employee. Even the Apex Court has only held that in such cases, enquiry can be proceeded with after serving copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent. In the case on hand, the petitioner was supplied with copy of enquiry report along with the showcause notice and also again when the petitioner sought copy of enquiry report. 15. The Standing Counsel for the 1[st] respondent, therefore, contended that no compassion or mercy need be extended to the petitioner, who has indulged in grave misconduct. Whatever leniency that can be shown to an **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** **16** employee in such circumstances, has been shown to the petitioner by modifying the punishment of removal imposed on him, to a punishment of compulsory retirement. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs, contended the Standing Counsel for the 1[st] respondent. 16. I have considered the pleadings in the writ petition and the arguments raised by the counsel on either side. 17. The first and foremost grievance raised by the petitioner is that the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion of the petitioner's guilt even without hearing the petitioner and seeking his explanation on the enquiry report. Under the law relating to the disciplinary proceedings in respect of public servants, it is a settled position that the disciplinary authority shall issue a notice to a delinquent along with a copy of enquiry report, asking the delinquent as to why the enquiry report should not be **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** **17** accepted and seeking his explanation on the findings of the inquiry authority. Normally, this should be done before the disciplinary authority making up his mind as to the guilt of the delinquent and on the quantum of punishment. When a disciplinary authority does not seek explanation on enquiry report and instead, requires the delinquent to explain why a particular penalty should not be imposed on him, the presumption is that the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion of guilt of the delinquent, even without hearing him. In such circumstances, the delinquent can allege bias against the disciplinary authority. Though such act by itself need not establish bias, the question of bias need be examined. Normally, this is something to be examined in appeal by statutory appellate authority, and it can be left to be decided by the appellate authority. In view of the directions proposed to be given in this writ petition, I find it not necessary to enter into a finding of bias on the part of the disciplinary authority now. **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** **18** 18. The second contention of the petitioner is that he was not served with a copy of the enquiry report along with show-cause notice and this has caused prejudice to the petitioner. From the records, it can be seen that the respondents have provided a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner as soon as a demand was made by the petitioner. The petitioner had the opportunity to examine the copy of enquiry report and in fact, gave his explanation too. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the nonsupply of a copy of the enquiry report along with showcause notice. 19. The third contention of the petitioner is that material witnesses were not examined and the statements made by certain witnesses were admitted in evidence without examining the makers thereof. Non-examination of material witnesses cannot be a ground to quash disciplinary proceedings, if there are sufficient materials/evidence **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** **19** before the inquiry authority/disciplinary authority to arrive at the finding of guilt of the delinquent. A perusal of the enquiry report reveals that the inquiry authority has relied on certain materials to arrive at the conclusion of the guilt of the petitioner. In view of the nature of the relief going to be granted in this writ petition, I do not propose to enter into a finding whether the evidence available on record is sufficient to hold that non-examination of material witnesses has vitiated the enquiry. 20. The counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the enquiry officer has taken on record certain documents, which were not proposed to be relied on, at the start of the enquiry. The additional documents collected and indicated as serial No.(a) to (i) in paragraph 10 of Ext.P6 enquiry report were not made available to the delinquent. At no point of time, the enquiry officer has revealed that these documents will be taken into account in deciding the guilt of the delinquent. If this is true, the said **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** **20** fact will definitely vitiate the enquiry, if any of those documents have been actually relied on by the inquiry authority/disciplinary authority to arrive at the conclusion of the guilt of the petitioner. 21. The contention of the petitioner is that there is no specific charge against the petitioner in the memorandum of charges and the only charge is that the petitioner has colluded with the consumers to commit energy theft. The charges levelled against the petitioner are vague and no disciplinary proceedings can be imposed based on such charge, contends the petitioner. I have gone through the charges levelled against the petitioner. The charges levelled against the petitioner are in clear terms. The charge is that the petitioner has colluded with Sri.A.G.Dinesh, Senior Superintendent, and certain consumers of KSEB and that in order to facilitate energy theft, tampered with electrical equipments. In the circumstances, I find no force in the argument of the **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** **21** counsel for the petitioner in this regard. 22. Similarly, the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that statements of certain officials were recorded by the enquiry officer while they were on leave and hence those statements would vitiate the proceedings, cannot be accepted. Statements of employees/officials in respect of facts which are within their knowledge, can very well be relied on even if the statements were recorded while they were on leave. As far as disciplinary proceedings are concerned, it is not material whether the witnesses have given their statements while they were on duty or not. 23. The appellate authority had sought legal opinion from the legal advisors of KSEB, which opinion was later brushed aside by the appellate authority. The petitioner contends that this would show the bias of the appellate authority. A legal opinion obtained by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority during a disciplinary enquiry, has no legally binding force. After all, it is only an **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** **22** opinion. The authorities can very well ignore the legal opinion for good and sufficient reasons. That by itself will not establish bias on the part of the authorities. 24. It is the specific case of the petitioner that as per the rules relating to disciplinary enquiry, the inquiry authority and disciplinary authority have to enter into specific findings as regards each of the charges separately. By Regulations 16(9) and 16(11) of the KSEB Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1969, the inquiry authority and disciplinary authority are mandated to record their findings on each of the charges together with the reasons thereof, if in the opinion of such authority charges are established. In the present proceedings, the inquiry authority and disciplinary authority have failed to do so. The inquiry authority in the conclusive part of his report has made a general statement that for the reasons and facts noted above and detailed above, all the charges against both the accused are proved. Obviously, such general **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** **23** finding by the enquiry officer does not satisfy the mandate of the Regulations. The disciplinary authority also in his Ext.P7 order imposing penalty, has not come to the conclusion of the guilt of the petitioner on each of the charges. To that extent, there is violation of the Regulations, 1969, which are framed invoking the powers under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. 25. Against Ext.P7 order imposing penalty, the petitioner had filed Ext.P8 appeal before the appellate authority. In Ext.P8 appeal, the petitioner had urged various reasons for which the disciplinary proceedings should be held as vitiated. However, without considering those reasons, the appellate authority passed Ext.P9 order reducing the punishment imposed on the petitioner to that of compulsory retirement, but however, concurring with the findings of the disciplinary authority. Against Ext.P9 order, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.27655/2015. In the said writ petition, this Court found that Ext.P9 order passed by the **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** **24** appellate authority is one passed without considering the specific grounds raised by the petitioner in Ext.P8 appeal. This Court found that the appellate authority ought to have considered the records of the enquiry and come to a conclusion. This Court, therefore, directed the appellate authority to reconsider Ext.P8 appeal “by specifically considering the case of the petitioner that no guilt could be established as against him on the basis of the records produced and the materials marked in the enquiry and put to him”. 26. In spite of the direction of this Court, the appellate authority passed Ext.P14 order finding that the appeal lacks merits. When the said Ext.P14 order was subjected to challenge by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7049/2018, this Court found that the appellate authority has failed to explain how it arrived at its conclusions. This Court found that Ext.P14 order does not reflect proper consideration of the appeal as directed in Ext.P13 **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** **25** judgment. Therefore, this Court quashed Ext.P14 and directed reconsideration of the appeal submitted by the petitioner in tune with the observations in Ext.P13 judgment in W.P.(C) No.27655/2015 and with reference to the contentions raised by the petitioner in the appeal. It is pursuant to the said direction, Ext.P18 order is seen to have been passed. 27. As regards sustainability of the findings in the enquiry report on the grounds of violations of principles of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner, the appellate authority did not specifically advert to the grounds of the petitioner raised in the appeal memorandum. Instead of that, the appellate authority held that preponderance of probability alone is required to arrive at findings of guilt and that the principles of natural justice had been observed in the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The appellate authority did not consider whether the fact of disciplinary authority proposing the penalty of removal **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** **26** before issuing show-cause and without hearing the petitioner, points towards a legal bias on the part of the disciplinary authority. The appellate authority did not either come to any conclusion as to the argument of the petitioner as regards non-examination of material witnesses resulting in vitiating the enquiry. Going by the enquiry report, it is seen that the inquiry authority has in its enquiry report taken into consideration a number of “additional documents” . The appellate authority did not at all check whether these additional documents were originally proposed to be the materials for disciplinary enquiry and whether these additional documents were brought to the notice of the petitioner during the enquiry and whether the petitioner was given any opportunity to examine those additional documents. The appellate authority also did not consider whether the requirements in the KSEB Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1969 as to recording of finding on each charge, by the inquiry authority **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** **27** and the disciplinary authority has vitiated the enquiry. The appellate authority neither did express its opinion on the acceptability of statements of witnesses which were relied on by the inquiry authority without examining the authors of the statements. All the above legal contentions urged by the petitioner have material bearing on the legality of the disciplinary proceedings, which the appellate authority miserably failed to consider. The failure is much aggravated, taking into account the fact that this Court in Exts.P13 and P16 judgments had specifically directed the appellate authority to consider the legal grievances of the petitioner. 28. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Ext.P18 appellate order is vitiated by non application of mind and cannot be sustained. Ext.P18 is, therefore, set aside. Taking into account the fact that the charges levelled against the petitioner are in respect of the incidents happened in the year 2006 and also taking into account the **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** **28** fact that the petitioner was kept out of service from the year 2014, the 2[nd] respondent-appellate authority is directed to reconsider Ext.P8 appeal filed by the petitioner and pass a detailed reasoned order, in the light of the observations made hereinabove, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** aks/19.02.2019 **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** **29** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 16.12.2006 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 12.01.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE MEMO CHARGES. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 04.06.2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 11.09.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 26.07.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KSEB.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER IN AN ENQUIRY AGAINST THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 07.11.2014 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM)** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DTD.10.12.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR KSEB.** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 06.08.2015 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB.** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF PROGRESS REPORT OF SRI BIJURAJ, ASSISTANT ENGINEER.** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF PROGRESS REPORT OF SRI.K SURESH ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.** **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF LEGAL OPINION GIVEN BY THE SENIOR LAW OFFICER, KSEB.** **WP(C).No.19016 of 2018** **30** **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 14.11.2017 IN WPC NO.27655 OF 2015 EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB. EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 20.12.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 09.03.2018 IN WPC NO.7049 OF 2018. EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.03.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB. EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 04.05.2018 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB.**