IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19984 of 2004(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.K. RAJAN, SUB ENGINEER (IIG) (RETIRED), K.S.E.B., SUB STATION, SUB DIVISION, KANNUR, RESIDING AT `BHADHURA', P.O. NADAKKUTHAZHA, VADAKARA-673 112. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 19984/2004-D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 19/07/2002 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE MEMO CHARGES DATED 14/03/2002 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF DEFENCE DATED 24/08/2002 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 25/04/2003 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 22/05/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 27/06/2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE PENSION SANCTIONING OR DATED 18/05/2004 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF CONDITION OF SUPPLY OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY 1972. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF CONDITION OF SUPPLY OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY WHICH CAME INTO FORCE ON 01/01/1990. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.VIG.B1.4602/97/1640 DATED 02/06/2007. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07/07/2006 IN W.A. NO. 893/2005 REFERRED TO IN EXT.P10. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.19984 OF 2004 (D) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner retired as Sub Engineer of the Board with effect from 31.10.2002. While in service by Ext.P1 he was placed under suspension, in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings in connection with certain power connections given during the period 1980-81. Though he was reinstated in service, Ext.P2 memo of charges was served on the petitioner in August, 2002. 2. Ext.P2 contains three allegations. The first of which was that he prepared an estimate for service connection to M/s. Queens Tourist Home,so as to enable them to get service connection against clause 15(i) of Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. Second allegation was that he enabled the aforesaid consumer to obtain four three phase service connections by fraudulent means, resulting in loss of Rs.86,908.90. Thirdly, it was alleged that he was carried out the illegal directions of the then Assistant Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer in connection with the preparation of the estimate for giving service connection to the aforesaid premises. WPC.No.19984 /04 :2 : 3. Petitioner submitted Ext.P3 explanation. It would appear that an enquiry was conducted and the report of which was accepted by the Chief Engineer. Finally Ext.P4 show cause notice was issued proposing recovery of an amount of Rs.43,454.95 from the petitioner. He submitted Ext.P5 reply. However, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P6 order confirming Ext.P4 show cause notice. In the meantime petitioner retired from service on 31.10.2002 and the loss mentioned in Ext.P6 was recovered from the DCRG and the balance was paid to the petitioner by Ext.P7. He preferred an appeal against Ext.P6 and that was rejected by the Chairman of the Board by Ext.P10 order. It is in this background, the writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P6 and P10. 4. Contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that under the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy in force at the time when supply was given during 1980-81, it was permissible to give more than one connection to the same premises. On this basis, it was contended that, the whole proceedings resulting in Exts.P6 and P10 are illegal and therefore have to be interfered with. WPC.No.19984 /04 :3 : 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent explaining that loss has been caused to the Board and that therefore the Board is justified in effecting recovery of the amount. The contention that under the regulations then in force, it was permissible to give more than one connection to the same premises is not seen controverted in this affidavit. 6. Exts.P8 and P9 are the extracts of Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy that was framed by Board, exercising its power under Section 71(j) of the Electrical Supply Act, 1948. Clause12(1)(f) to Ext.P8 shows that if a consumer had more than one service (whether in one premises or not) he will be required to executive separate agreements for each services This indicates that it was permissible to give more than one service connection to a consumer and that too to one premises. It is stated that Ext.P8 Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy remained in force till which was replaced by Ext.P9 with effect from 1.1.1990. It was in Ext.P9 the prohibition against giving more than one connection as contended by the Board was introduced by the first respondent by virtue of clause 15 (i). Therefore, going by the pleadings, the power connection in WPC.No.19984 /04 :4 : question was given by the petitioner, during the year 1980-81. At that time, the conditions of service, that was in force is Ext.P8 and going by Ext.P8 no irregularity could have been alleged against the petitioner on the ground that he gave more than one service connection to one premises. If so , the recovery of loss as imposed by Ext.P6 and confirmed in Ext.P10 on the ground that the petitioner gave more than one power connection to one premises is illegal and cannot be sustained. Therefore, Exts.P6 and P10 will sand set aside and respondents are directed to disburse the amount recovered from the DCRG that was given to the petitioner. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.19984 /04 :5 :