IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2010 / 9TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 17953 of 2005(K) ------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.VIJAYAN, S/O.LATE V.KRISHNAN, AMBATTU VEEDU, MEENAM, EDAVANAKKAVU, KAVANADU P.O., KOLLAM. BY SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR, SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN, SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER(HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KAVANADU P.O., KOLLAM. R1 TO R4 BY ADV.SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.17953/2005 K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AGRL.OFFICER TO G.RAJENDRAN DTD. 14/08/2000. P2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY AGRL.OFFICER DTD. 16/05/2001. P3: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN 3RD RESPONDENT AND ONE RAJENDRAN DTD. 23/01/2001. P4: COPY OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN 3RD RESPONDENT AND ONE CLEETUS RICHARDS DTD. 11/06/2001. P5: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 8/10/2002. P6: COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 15/03/2003. P7: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 17/10/2003. P8: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P7 DTD. 2/12/2003. P9: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 26/12/2003. P10: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 DTD. 2/03/2005. P11: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM DTD. 8/12/2004. P12: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 DTD. 27/11/2002. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 17953 of 2005 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 1st day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T While the petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer in the Electrical Major Section, Sakthikulangara of the Kerala State Electricity Board, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing Ext. P5 memo of charges. Although, several charges have been mentioned therein, the essence of the charges is that the petitioner gave electricity connection for agricultural purposes under the agricultural tariff, although the connection was not actually for agricultural purposes. The petitioner filed Ext. P6 statement of defence to the memo of charges. Subsequent to the same, Ext. P7 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner directing him to show cause why the punishment of barring of next one increment with cumulative effect should not be imposed on the petitioner and the loss of Rs. 19,850/- caused on account of the misconduct committed by the petitioner should not be recovered from him. The petitioner filed Ext. P8 reply to the same. After considering the same, by Ext. P9 order, a punishment of barring of one increment without cumulative effect and recovery of Rs. 19,850/- being 50% of the loss sustained by the Board with interest thereon at 24% from the date of the memo of charges was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same, which was dismissed by Ext. P10 order of the Board. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P9 and P10 seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ order or direction quashing Exts. P9 and P10 orders of respondents 1 and 2 respectively; (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 and 2 to drop all disciplinary proceedings in the above case; W.P.C. No. 17953/05 -: 2 :- (iii) grant the petitioner such other appropriate reliefs that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant on the facts and circumstances of the case.” The contention of the petitioner is that by Exts.P1 and P2, the agricultural officer of Krishi Bhavan, Sakthikulangara had certified that the consumers in question had installed an one H.P. Pump set and electricity connection can be give for installation of the pump set which is purely for agricultural purposes. According to him, he had no mala fide intention and it was based on Exts.P1 and P2 certificates, it was decided to recommend granting of electricity connection to those consumers. He would submit that his elaborate contentions in Ext. P8 had not been considered by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority while passing the impugned orders. He submits that he is not guilty of any misconduct whatsoever and therefore he should not have been imposed with any punishment for the alleged misconduct. He further points out that one of the consumers had filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum against disconnection of their electricity connection which, although, was dismissed, in the order dismissing the same, namely, Ext. P11, there was a finding that the complainant was using the current for agricultural purpose under LT-V tariff. Since that finding has become final, the petitioner cannot be held to be guilty of any misconduct in granting electricity connection for agricultural purpose to the consumers in question. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, wherein the 1st respondent would support the impugned orders. According to them, there was no material with the petitioner to find that the consumers were doing any agricultural activities in the property in question and therefore the petitioner could not have W.P.C. No. 17953/05 -: 3 :- recommended grant of agricultural connection to them. According to them, the petitioner had not recorded what type of agricultural activity the consumers were engaged in. They would point out that as is clear from Ext. P12 order of the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electricity Circle, Kollam, in the property in question, there were only coconut trees and the land was surrounded by water obviating any necessity for irrigation. Therefore, no agricultural connection could have been granted for any agricultural activity in that property. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The petitioner had given a very detailed explanation Ext. P8 to the show cause notice. But, strangely in that also there is also no mention whatsoever as to for what kind of agricultural activity the petitioner had recommended grant of electricity connection for agricultural purposes. Even today, the petitioner could not explain to me what was the agricultural activity for which the connection was given by the petitioner to the two consumers. Admittedly, the area is a water-logged one and there were only a few coconut trees thereon. When the area is a water-logged area, there cannot be any necessity for any irrigation, even if it is assumed that the agricultural activity was planting of coconut. As such, the petitioner could not bring home any necessity for grant of agriculture connection to the consumers in question to the properties owned by them. Admittedly, the petitioner had visited the property before granting the connection. If he had visited the property, then he would have readily come to the conclusion that no agricultural connection could have been given to any agricultural activity in that property. Of course, there is some reference to fishing farm in the said property. But in Ext. P8, the petitioner himself stated that nothing was found to show that there was cultivation of fish or hatching of fishes in the property. In Ext. P8 W.P.C. No. 17953/05 -: 4 :- also, the only statement is that the property was cultivated with coconut trees and the purpose of electricity connection was for watering the coconut trees. Notwithstanding Exts.P1 and P2 certificates from the Agricultural Officer, it was the duty of the petitioner to inspect the property and satisfy himself that the consumers are entitled to connection for agricultural purposes. Obviously, the petitioner has not discharged that duty. 5. The fact that in Ext. P11 order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam, it was found that the complainant was using the current for agricultural purposes under LT-V tariff would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner insofar as ultimately the complaint was dismissed. The complaint was against disconnection of the agricultural connection. That being so, I do not think that the respondents could have been faulted for finding the petitioner guilty of granting connection irregularly. The petitioner has been visited with only a very minor punishment of barring of one increment without cumulative effect and recovery of the loss caused. I am of opinion that the respondents were too lenient on the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any illegality whatsoever in the impugned orders. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/