High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2024-02-22Writ appeals dismissed; the orders of the disci...

WA No. 1163 of 2018 and connected cases (against judgments in WPC Nos. 30115 of 2013; 10214 of 2014; 2812 of 2014; 12880 of 2014)

Case / Petition Number:WA No. 1163 of 2018; WA No. 1130 of 2018; WA No. 1258 of 2018; WA No. 1280 of 2018 (connected cases)

Neutral Citation::

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Amit Rawal
C.S. Sudha
Judgment Date: 2024-02-22
Court Decision / Holding: Writ appeals disposed of by dismissing the Appeals; the Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s finding that the disciplinary actions violated due process and Regulations, set aside the orders imposing punishment, and held that no further disciplinary proceedings should be initiated against the petitioners.
Final Disposition: Writ appeals dismissed; the orders of the disciplinary authority imposing punishment are set aside; no further disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.
The Chairman, Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd
The Chief Engineer (HRM), KSEB Ltd
The Deputy Chief Engineer, KSEB Ltd (Electrical Circle, Alappuzha)
The Executive Engineer, KSEB Ltd (Electrical Division, Alappuzha)

Respondents

D. Vishnu Nampoothiri, Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Thengana, Changanacherry, Kottayam Dist.
R. Santosh Kumar, Assistant Engineer, KSEB Ltd., Electrical Circle, Haripad, Alappuzha Dist.
N. Sadasivan Pillai, aged 63 years, S/O Late Parameswara Panicker, Assistant Engineer (Retd.), KSEB, Chengannur

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Aneetha A.G., SC, KSEB (for all WA petitions)

Counsels for Respondents

• WA 1163/2018: Smt. S.P. Aravindakshan Pillay; Sri S.A. Anand; Smt. L. Annapoorna; Sri K.A. Balan; Sri P. Peter Jose Christo; Smt. N. Santha;
• WA 1130/2018: Sri Arun Bose; Sri B. Bipin; Sri R. Reji; Sri M.V. Thamban; Smt. Thara Thamban;
• WA 1258/2018: Sri P.M. Mohammed Shiraz;
• WA 1280/2018: Smt. Aneetha A.G., SC (Board counsel)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This batch of writ appeals (WA Nos. 1163/2018, 1130/2018, 1258/2018, 1280/2018) before a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court arises from disciplinary actions taken by the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) against its officers (Assistant Engineer/Assistant Executive Engineer) for alleged improper installation of an energy connection. The Enquiry Officer found the charges not proved, but the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with that finding without recording requisite satisfaction and without affording an opportunity of hearing, issuing a show-cause notice proposing punishment (including recovery of losses and withholding increments). The appellate authority’s decision was also subject to challenge. The learned Single Judge had held that the Disciplinary Authority’s actions violated Regulation 12(i)(a) of the KSEB Employees (Classification, Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1969, primarily for non-compliance with due process, including absence of notice before differing from the Enquiry Officer’s findings. The Division Bench relied on cited precedents (Thomas C.V. v. KSEB; S. Gopalakrishnan v. Government) to emphasise natural justice: a delinquent employee must be given a hearing and satisfaction must be recorded before any change from the Enquiry Officer’s findings. Ultimately, the court held that the orders imposing punishment were illegal and unsustainable, set aside those orders, and dismissed the writ appeals, leaving the matter at rest without further disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaRegulation 12(i)(a) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1969

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Natural justice (audi alteram partem) – entitlement to hearing before disciplinary action is taken
Disciplinary authority must record satisfaction before differing from Enquiry Officer’s findings
Notice and opportunity before taking punitive action (before imposing punishment)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants/Board contended that the reasons to punish were already stated in the show-cause notice and that a disciplinary authority is permitted to differ from the Enquiry Officer’s findings. They argued that there is no bar to disagree with the findings and that the Regulations 12(i)(a) did not require a separate hearing at this stage, as reasons are already provided in the show-cause notice and the Board’s action was within statutory powers.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents/petitioners argued that no effective material was brought before the Enquiry Officer or confronted to them, and that the disciplinary authority acted without giving an opportunity of hearing and without recording satisfaction before differing from the Enquiry Officer’s findings, thereby violating Regulation 12(i)(a). They relied on prior judicial precedents mandating due process before punitive action and emphasized that the relevant procedure was not followed, rendering the orders illegal and unsustainable.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Thomas C.V. v. KSEB and others	2008 KHC 4841	Positive	Cited as authority that a Disciplinary Authority must record satisfaction and provide an opportunity of hearing when differing from the Enquiry Officer’s findings; failure renders action illegal.
S. Gopalakrishnan v. Secretary to Government and Another	2007 (3) KHC 660	Positive	Supports requirement of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings and the need for due process before imposing punishment.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against WA No. 1163 of 2018 and connected cases (against judgments in WPC Nos. 30115 of 2013; 10214 of 2014; 2812 of 2014; 12880 of 2014) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA** **THURSDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1945** **WA NO. 1163 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.30115 OF 2013 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 IN WP(C):** - **1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (ADMINISTRATION),VYDYUTHI BHAVAN,PATTOM,TRIVANDRUM DIST. 695 004.** - **2 THE CHAIRMAN KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM DIST 695 004.** - **3 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM DIST 695 004.** ## **BY ADV SMT.ANEETHA A.G., SC, KERALA STATE ELECT** ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WP(C):** **D.VISHNU NAMPOOTHIRI ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, THENGANA, CHANGANACHERY,KOTTAYAM DIST. 689 606.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SRI.S.A.ANAND SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SMT.N.SANTHA** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 22.02.2024, ALONG WITH WA.1130/2018, 1258/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WA NO. 1163 OF 2018 and conctd. Cases** **2** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA THURSDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1945 WA NO. 1130 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.12.2016 IN WPC NO.10214 OF 2014 OF HIGH COURT** **OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 IN WP:** - **1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (ADMINISTRATION)VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM DIST 695 004.** - **2 THE CHAIRMAN KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,VYDYUTHIBHAVANAM, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM DIST. 695 004.** - **3 THE CHIEF ENGINEERHRM KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,VYDYUTHIBHAVANAM, PATTOM,TRIVANDRUM DIST. 695 004.** - **4 THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,ELECTRICAL CIRCLE,ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DIST 688 001** - **5 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINNERHRM KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,ELECTRICAL CIRCLE,ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688 001** **BY ADV SMT.ANEETHA A.G., SC, KERALA STATE ELECT** ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WP:** **R.SANTHOSH KUMAR ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, HARIPAD,ALAPPUZHA DIST. 688 001.** **BY ADVS. SRI.ARUN BOSE SRI.B.BIPIN SRI.R.REJI SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SMT.THARA THAMBAN** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 22.02.2024, ALONG WITH** **WA.1163/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WA NO. 1163 OF 2018 and conctd. Cases** **3** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA** **THURSDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1945 WA NO. 1258 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.2812 OF 2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WP:** - **1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS** - **SECRETARY,VYDHYUTHIBHAVANAM,PATTOM,TRIVANDRUM DIST.,695004.** - **2 THE CHAIRMAN** **KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM,PATTOM,TRIVANDRUM DIST,695004.** **3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECRICITY BOARD LTD,ELECTRICAL DIVISION,CHENGANNUR,PIN-689505.** **BY ADVS.** **SMT.ANEETHA A.G., SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD-KSEB** ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WP:** **N. SADASIVAN PILLAI AGED 63 YEARS,S/O LATE PARAMESWARA PANICKER,ASSISTANT ENGINEER(RETD.),KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,R/O VILAKKUPATTATHIL HOUSE,PANDANAD.P.O,CHENGANNUR689506.** **BY ADV SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED SHIRAZ** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 22.02.2024, ALONG WITH WA.1163/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WA NO. 1163 OF 2018 and conctd. Cases** **4** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA** **THURSDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1945 WA NO. 1280 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.12880 OF 2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 IN WP:** - **1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (ADMINISTRATION), VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM DIST.-695 004.** - **2 THE CHAIRMAN** - **KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM DIST.-695 004.** - **3 THE CHIEF ENGINEER HRM KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM DIST.-695 004.** **4 THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DIST.-688001.** - **5 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., ELECTRICAL DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DIST.-688001.** - **6 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., ELECTRICAL DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA,ALAPPUZHA DIST.688001.** **BY ADV SMT.ANEETHA A.G., SC, KERALA STATE ELECT** ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WP:** **JOSE JOSEPH AGED 49 YEARS** **S/O.JOSEPH K.D., AGED 49 YEARS, SUB ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., ELECTRICAL SECTION, KIDANGARA, ALAPPUZHA - 688001.** **BY ADVS. R.REJI THARA THAMBAN B.BIPIN ARUN BOSE** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 22.02.2024, ALONG WITH WA.1163/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WA NO. 1163 OF 2018 and conctd. Cases** **5** ## JUDGMENT ## Amit Rawal, J. The petitioners/respondents were working as Assistant Engineer/Assistant Executive Engineer with the respondent Electricity Board. While discharging their duties, confronted with the charges of improper installation of the energy connection. Dissatisfied with the reply to the charge sheet, an enquiry officer was appointed and found that none of the charges levelled against the delinquent officers could be proved. The disciplinary authority, Chief Engineer without recording reasons/satisfaction immediately issued a show cause notice, by disagreeing with the enquiry officer, contemplating to impose a punishment of barring of one increment without cumulative effect and recovery of the amount proportionately amongst them. The statutory appeal preferred before the appellate authority was also dismissed. It is in that background, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was invoked. 2. Learned Single Bench noticing all the factors vindicated the grievance by holding that the disciplinary ## **WA NO. 1163 OF 2018 and conctd. Cases** **6** authority did not follow the provisions of the Regulation 12(i)(a) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1969. In other words, the disciplinary authority did not record any satisfaction or give any opportunity of hearing but straight away issued a show cause notice imposing the punishment of withholding the increment without cumulative effect. It is in that background, appellant has approached this court. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the reasons have already been assigned in the show cause notice, which is self sufficient. There is no bar for the disciplinary authority to disagree with the enquiry officer. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the employees/petitioners submitted that no effective material was brought before the enquiry officer or ever confronted to the respondents/petitioners by offering any opportunity of hearing but straight away issued the notice, which was in deviation of the provisions of the Regulation 12(i)(a) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1969. It was submitted that the judgment relied **WA NO. 1163 OF 2018 and conctd. Cases** **7** upon by the Single Bench squarely covers the case of the appellant. The appeal is without any substance and is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. Noticing the judgments of Thomas C.V v. KSEB and others (2008 KHC 4841), S. Gopalakrishnan v. Secretary to Government and Another (2007 (3) KHC 660), the learned Single Bench held as under: 11.In the instant case also, the Enquiry Officer had clearly found that the error in the connection might have happened after August 2004 when an inspection had been conducted and no tampering was noticed by the Squad. It is therefore stated that the charges levelled against the delinquent officers could not be proved. The disciplinary authority which decided to differ from the findings of the enquiry report ought to have put the delinquent officers on notice of its intention to do so. However, the disciplinary authority had straightaway decided to disagree with the findings in the Enquiry Report and had issued a show cause notice to the delinquent employees requiring them to show cause as to why the proposed punishment should not be imposed. Going by the decisions of this Court referred to above, this procedure is erroneous. The requirement of the delinquent employee being put on notice before the disciplinary authority decides on the question of differing from the findings of the enquiry has been given a go by in this case. 12.In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the orders passed by the disciplinary authority imposing the punishment of recovery of loss from the petitioner in these writ petitions are illegal and unsustainable. The orders impugned in these writ petitions are therefore set aside. In view of the fact that the allegation is with regard to the period from 2001 to 2007 and the first two writ petitioners have already retired from service as also taking note of the contention of the Board before the Electricity Ombudsman as has been recorded by Exhibit P10 **WA NO. 1163 OF 2018 and conctd. Cases** ## **8** order of the Ombudsman, I am of the opinion that no purpose will be served by directing the respondents to continue the action taken against the petitioners from the stage where it was vitiated. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case and the findings entered, I am of the opinion that the issue should rest without any further disciplinary proceedings as against the petitioners. 6. The enquiry officer had clearly found that the error in the connection might have happened after August 2004 when an inspection was conducted but the squad did not find any tampering. The charges levelled against the delinquent officers could not be proved. The disciplinary authority straight away decided to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer and issued a show cause notice of punishment before recording the satisfaction and giving opportunity of hearing. Two of the writ petitioners had already retired, were also not posted from 2001 to 2007. We are of the view that there is no ambiguity or illegality in the findings of the Single Bench. No ground for interference is made out. Writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- ## AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE Sd/- ## C.S. SUDHA, JUDGE sab