R. SASI v. Kerala State Electricity Board and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2016/12TH PHALGUNA, 1937** ## **WP(C).No. 6035 of 2006 (R)** ## **---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **--------------------------** **R.SASI, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, SUB-ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS.SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.MANU V.** **RESPONDENT(S):** - **----------------------------** **1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHIBHAVAN, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KSEB, VYDHYUTHIBHAVAN, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (RURAL) KATTAKADA.** ## **4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, NEYYATTINKARA.** **R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB BY ADV. SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB BY SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 6035 of 2006 (R)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:** - **P1: PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGE NO. GB.I/DISC. CASES/9596/BPM/1687, DATED 7.8.1995 ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS.** - **P2: COPY OF THE REPORT OF ENQUIRY DATED 26.10.1996 BY SRI. P. REGHUVARAN EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (NC), OFFICE OF THE C.E. (E) WBP, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **P3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GB.2/615/2003/1064, DATED 28.7.2003 PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT REJECTING THE PETITIONER'S APPEAL.** - **P4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EBBS./2/18/2005, DATED 30.11.2005 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:** **R1(A): COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.2.2003.** **R1(B): COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 18.6.2003.** - **R1(C): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9.1.1998 OF THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, NEYYATTINKARA, KSRTC.** - **R1(D): COPY OF THE CALCULATION MADE FROM THE SERVICE BOOK OF THE PETITIONER, WITH RESPECT TO THE PAYMENT MADE FROM KSEB DURING THE PERIOD FROM 12.2.1997 TO 17.3.1988.** **R1(E): COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24.6.2003 OF THE PETITIONER.** **R1(F): COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF GOVINDA PILLAI.** **R1(G): COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF T. SATHEESHCHANDRAN NAIR.** **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** **JJJ** ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** -----------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 6035 of 2006 (R) -----------------------------------------Dated this the 2[nd] day of March, 2016 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner, an Overseer, is aggrieved with the Order No. GB.I/ Disc.cases/ 95-96/ BPM/ 77 dated 23.4.2003, affirmed in appeal at Ext.P3 and the review too rejected at Ext.P4. 2. The petitioner was proceeded departmentally with Ext.P1 memo of charges. Nine charges were levelled against the petitioner. A statement of allegations was also enclosed with Ext.P1. Not satisfied with the explanation an Enquiry Officer was appointed, the report of which is produced at Ext.P2. The Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner on the charges levelled at Sl.Nos.1 to 4 and 6. Charges at 5, 7, 8 and 9 were found against the petitioner, upon which the ## **W.P.(C) No. 6035/2006** **-2-** aforesaid order was passed imposing a punishment of barring of two increments with cumulative effect. The appeal and review were also rejected as per Exts.P3 and P4. This Court has to confine the consideration to the findings of the Enquiry Officer with respect to the charges at 5, 7, 8 and 9. It is to be noticed that the petitioner has not produced the original order of the disciplinary authority, which is said to have followed the findings at the enquiry. 3. Charge no.5 was with respect to the petitioner having obtained wages during a particular period, both from the KSEB and the KSRTC. The averments in the writ petition indicate that the petitioner, who was appointed as a temporary Lineman, was terminated from service upon which the petitioner approached this Court along with certain others, similarly situated. The said litigation concluded with this Court directing all ## **W.P.(C) No. 6035/2006** **-3-** those persons terminated to be taken back with benefits of back from the date of termination till wages reinstatement. During the said period, when the petitioner was out of service, the petitioner is said to have been working in the KSRTC and he had also received salary for the period 12.02.1987 to 17.03.1988, as is seen admitted at the enquiry and recorded in the report. 4. The petitioner contends that subsequently the petitioner filed a review and on that basis the entire amounts drawn from the KSRTC was paid back. Hence, there is no issue of double remuneration having been received by the petitioner, is the contention. But for such averments in the writ petition, nothing is produced to indicate that there was such a review of the judgment passed in favour of the petitioner or that the petitioner remitted back the amounts to the KSRTC, as **-4-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 6035/2006** per the order passed by this Court. In the circumstance of no such evidence having been produced before the Enquiry Officer also, there is nothing further to be done with respect to the said charge. The charge having been proved by the Enquiry Officer, cannot be interfered with by this Court. It is also to be mentioned that ideally the petitioner ought to have given up his claim for back wages from the Board, at least during the period he had been alternatively employed. The petitioner hence is guilty of suppression and of conduct to pocket double benefits; which was only later attempted to be rectified. 5. The other charges found against the petitioner were charges 7, 8 and 9. The said charges were with respect to an incident where the petitioner is said to have disconnected a connection granted authorisedly to a constructed house from a newly neighboring ## **W.P.(C) No. 6035/2006** **-5-** consumer. The petitioner is alleged to have disconnected the connection alleging the same to be unauthorised, upon which the house owner filed a complaint with the Board. This was charge no.6 which was found to have been not proved. The house owner is also said to have taken some pictures of the petitioner showing him to be playing cards within the premises of the Board, which constituted charge no: 7. 6. The further charge (no.9), as per Ext.P1, was the filing of a complaint before the Police without informing the superior officer, against the consumer who is alleged to have preferred a complaint against the petitioner Charge no.9 was for filing a written statement before the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Balaramapuram, accusing the complainant/consumer. ## **W.P.(C) No. 6035/2006** **-6-** 7. Charge no.6 that, the petitioner personally disconnected the service connection, was found to be not proved. In such circumstance, normally, the other charges also should have fallen to the ground. But, however, charges 7, 8 and 9 were found to be proved. 8. The Enquiry Officer has recorded that neither the complainant nor the complainant's father, who were directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer, had appeared to give evidence. The Enquiry Officer merely relied on the statement of the Assistant Executive Engineer, to find that the complaint was true. The complainant ought to have been examined and the petitioner granted an opportunity for cross examination. 9. The charge with respect to the petitioner having engaged in gambling was also found to be proved, despite the fact that no photographs or the negatives were produced before the Enquiry Officer. ## **W.P.(C) No. 6035/2006** **-7-** Again, the written complaint made to the Assistant Executive Engineer, was relied on to arrive at such a finding. The complainant himself having not been examined, as is noticed above, no reliance could have been placed on the written statement. 10. With respect to charges 8 and 9 it is clear that the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Balaramapuram, was informed of the incident in which the complainant is said to have threatened the petitioner and forcefully taken photographs. There is no basis on which the charges, regarding the Head of Office having not been informed of the incident and the petitioner having filed a complaint without such information. It is also pertinent that the complaint filed before the Police was not produced, nor even the FIR number referred. This Court is of the opinion that no reliance can be placed on the findings in the enquiry **-8-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 6035/2006** with respect to charges 7,8 and 9. 11. With respect to charge no.5 this Court has already held that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had repaid the amounts either to the KSRTC or to the KSEB. It was also observed that if the petitioner had been working during the period he was out of employment, the petitioner ought to have got a suitable direction from the Court or submitted before the Court about the said employment so that the KSEB would not be mulcted with the liability of payment of amounts when he was otherwise gainfully employed. The petitioner has not produced anything before the Enquiry Officer or before this Court to substantiate his defence to the 5[th] charge. There being no evidence against the charge; this court would not interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer as accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. Having found the charge no.5 to **-9-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 6035/2006** be proved, there is no reason why this Court should cause any interference to the punishment imposed. 12. It is also pertinent that the order of punishment has not been produced along with the writ petition and merely an appeal and the order in review have been produced. There can be no interference caused to the penalty ordered; by this Court. The petitioner has a further case that the appeal was not considered properly, since it is not a speaking order. Ext.P3 merely recorded that the matter has been examined with reference to the files and records and there are no points warranting reconsideration of the order, as argued by the appellant. This would go against the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **S.** **Ramanathan v. Chief Judicial Magistrate,** . **Chengalpattu and others - 2002 (10) SCC 473** ## **W.P.(C) No. 6035/2006** **-10-** 13. Exts.P3 and P4 would hence, stand set aside and reconsideration of the appeal is directed. The same shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj 3/3/16