P.K. Sajeevan v. Kerala State Electricity Board

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **FRIDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 23RD POUSHA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO.11586 OF 2010** ## **- PETITIONER :** P.K.SAJEEVAN, SUB ENGINEER TRAINEE, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, KALADY P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST., RESIDING AT PERINCHERI HOUSE, PARAPPURAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.S.RAMESH BABU ## **- RESPONDENTS :** 1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHUTHI BHAVAN. 2 CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 3 CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADVS. SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SC SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.11586 OF 2010 -: 2 :- ## JUDGMENT ## Dated this the 13th day of January, 2023 This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :- - “1) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P11 and Exhibit P13, examine its legality and propriety and quash the same. - 2) To declare that the petitioner is not guilty/responsible for the failure to disconnect the supply in respect of Consumer No.425A. - 3) To declare that the findings in Exhibits P11 and P13 are based on mere conjectures and surmises and is without any evidence and that the same is arbitrary, illegal and malafide. - 4) To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P4 and quash the same to the extent that it holds the petitioner guilty of dereliction of duty for not informing the hindrance to disconnect to his immediate superior.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been issued with a memo of charges in the disciplinary proceedings initiated while working as Lineman in the year 2002. It is submitted that the charge against the petitioner was as follows :- WP(C) NO.11586 OF 2010 -: 3 :- - “i. You did not disconnect the service connection of the defaulted Consumer bearing Consumer No.425A of Electrical Section, Koratty on the basis of the DC list provided by the Cashier, sustaining a revenue loss of Rs.56,739/- to the Board. - ii. Dereliction of duty.” A full fledged enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. An enquiry report was also submitted as evidenced by Ext.P7. With regard to the allegations raised against the petitioner, the finding in Ext.P7 was as follows :- “2. The AE had informed the matter to the AEE that this consumer was not disconnected due to intervention from higher officers. The Lineman could have reported the matter to his immediate superior. This failure is to be treated as dereliction of duty. But at the same time, the deponent had carried out his duties faithfully. Hence a lenient view may be taken in this regard.” On the basis of the enquiry report, Ext.P9 notice was issued to the petitioner stating that though the enquiry report reveals that there is no intentional dereliction of duty, the deponent cannot be exonerated. The petitioner was required to show cause why the proposed punishment of barring of one increment without cumulative effect and recovery of Rs.8,511/- + 24% interest shall not be inflicted on him. WP(C) NO.11586 OF 2010 -: 4 :- 4. The petitioner submitted Ext.P10 reply specifically pointing out that the finding in the enquiry was that it was on the orders of the AEE that the petitioner had not disconnected the electric supply and that the enquiry officer had specifically found that the petitioner could not have disconnected the electric supply since there was a specific direction by the AEE not to do so. It was submitted that the petitioner could not be proceeded against on the basis of an enquiry report which exonerated him. However, Ext.P11 order was passed on 18.7.2009 reducing the punishment to barring of one increment without cumulative effect for the period of six months and recovery of an amount of Rs.7,562/- with 24% interest. Though the petitioner submitted Ext.P12 appeal, the same was also rejected by Ext.P13 order. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Ext.P14, which is a full copy of the enquiry report, would show that the enquiry officer had also found that the petitioner had actually reported the matter to the superiors and therefore, that the finding in Ext.P7 as against the petitioner is not warranted. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in the light of the judgments of this Court in Thomas C.V. v. WP(C) NO.11586 OF 2010 -: 5 :- KSEB and others [2008 KHC 4841], S. Gopalakrishnan Nair v. Secretary to Government and another [2007 (3) KHC 660] and Sujatha P. R. v. State Bank of Travancore and others [2016 KHC 44], in case the disciplinary authority is differing from the findings of the enquiry officer, a specific notice detailing the reasons for such disagreement is to be issued to the petitioner and the petitioner's contentions on such reasons are also to be considered before an order is passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no such exercise in the instant case as is evidenced by Ext.P9. 7. The learned counsel would also place reliance on Rule 16 of the Kerala State Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Control & Appeal) Regulations to contend that where the disciplinary authority seeks to differ from the findings of the enquiry authority, it has to specifically state the brief reasons for disagreement with the findings of the enquiry authority and the notice to be issued to the delinquent shall contain such reasons also. 8. A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 1[st] respondent. It is submitted that there is a financial loss of Rs.56,739/- that has occurred to the Board due to the WP(C) NO.11586 OF 2010 -: 6 :- irresponsibility of the concerned field staff in not disconnecting the connection of the defaulted consumer, which is the reason why the memo of charges had been issued to the petitioner. It is submitted that since 40% of the liability was fixed on the Assistant Executive Engineer and 60% divided among the other staff, the liability of the petitioner actually came to Rs.7,562/which is why Ext.P11 order has been passed. It is further contended in the counter affidavit that the enquiry was conducted specifically in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations and that all the contentions of the petitioner were considered by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority and that there is no error in the orders passed. 9. Having considered the contentions advanced, I notice that the enquiry officer after conducting of full enquiry had specifically found that the failure to disconnect the electric supply to the specific consumer was due to the intervention of the higher officials and that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same. It was specifically stated that the Lineman could have reported the matter to his immediate superior and that the failure to do so is to be treated as dereliction of duty. It was further found that the deponent had WP(C) NO.11586 OF 2010 -: 7 :- carried out his duties faithfully, hence a lenient view is to be taken in the matter. The finding of the enquiry officer being specifically that the delinquent officer was not responsible for the failure to disconnect the electric supply, I am of the opinion that the notice issued by the disciplinary authority to the extent it disagreed with the findings in the enquiry should have recorded its reasons for such disagreement. Ext.P9 notice contains no such reasons. Since the petitioner was found by the disciplinary authority as not being guilty of the charges laid against him, I am of the opinion that the infliction of the punishment was not warranted. In the above view of the matter, Exts.P11 and P13 orders are set aside. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE Jvt/19 .1.2023 WP(C) NO.11586 OF 2010 ## -: 8 :- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11586/2010** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM DATED 8.9.04 IN OP No.623/03. - Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 18.8.05 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 27.9.05 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF REGULATIONS IN RESPECT OF LINEMEN IN KSEB - Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 9.2.08 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER - Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION DATED 21.12.07 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ENQUIRY OFFICER - Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT UNDER COVER OF MEMO DATED 21.10.2008 - Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 27.2.2010 RECEIVED FROM THE ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER AND PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER - Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 29.8.2008 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 12.11.2008 - Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.7.09 OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT - Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 10.10.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN KSEB - Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER No.VIG/AVI/3225/03/479 WP(C) NO.11586 OF 2010 -: 9 :- DATED 3.3.2010 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT FURNISHED UNDER COVER OF LETTER DATED 10.3.2010.