IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 3220 of 2004(G) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V.K. JAYARAMAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (RETD), ELECTRICAL SECTION, VYTHIRI, KALPETTA, RESIDING AT 'ASWATHY', MELUR P.O., KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.P.K.SURESH KUMAR, MR.K.P.SUDHEER. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (H.R.M.), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY MR. C.K. KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.3220/2004-G: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 31/03/2003 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DT. 27/06/2003 ISSUED BY THE R.3. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DT. 14/07/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.3. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT. 21/10/2003 ISSUED BY THE R.3. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DT. 30/10/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.3. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. GB3/ALLEGATION DISC. ACTION/ECK/4/03-04/2934 DT. 12/01/2004 ISSUED BY THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.3220 OF 2004 ------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner was an Assistant Engineer in the service of the Board. On certain allegations of misconduct he was placed under suspension on 6.1.2003. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.3.2003. On that day he was reinstated and was allowed to retire from service. 2. On 27.6.2003 Ext.P2 memo of charges was issued and the charges were following; “(1) You have intentionally delayed the service connection in respect of one Sri. K.Kunhu Muhammed, Kallinkal House, Chundale P.O, Vythiri with oblique motive and pecuniary interest. (2)You have demanded and accepted Rs.2,000/- as bribe from another consumer, Smt. Aysha, W/o. Sri.kunhamu, Erichipalli House, Vythiri for effecting service connection to her newly constructed building.” 3. He submitted Ext.P3 explanation and finally by Ext.P6, stating that on perusal of the reply submitted by WP(c).No.3220/04 2 the delinquent he has not put forth any point worth consideration, punishment of barring of his last drawn increment without cumulative effect for a period of 6 months was imposed. It was also ordered that the period of suspension be treated as suspension itself. It is challenging Ext.P6 that this writ petition is filed. 4. Two contentions are raised. One is that in the absence of any allegation that any pecuniary loss was caused to the Board, continuance of the disciplinary action beyond retirement is impermissible in view of Rule 3 Part III KSR. A reading of Rule 3 shows that the Government have power to proceed against a retired person for ordering recovery from pension, the pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if the petitioner is ultimately found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. In this case, the misconduct stated above did not make out a case coming within the scope of the said Rule. WP(c).No.3220/04 3 5. That apart a reading of Ext.P6 shows that the disciplinary authority has not independently considered the explanation submitted by the delinquent. On the other had the order itself show that the disciplinary authority was acting at the dictates of the Chief Engineer by obeying his instruction to impose punishment on the petitioner. This contention of the petitioner also deserves acceptance. For the aforesaid reasons Ext.P6 order is quashed. It is directed that the disciplinary authority shall take a fresh decision about the manner in which the period of suspension of the petitioner is to be treated and on the basis of such decision s the respondent shall work out the pensionery benefits of the petitioner and allow the benefits on that basis. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.3220/04 4