IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 7130 of 2005(W) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- V. SURESHLAL, LINEMAN GRADE-I, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATHANAMPURAM (FORMERLY ELECTRICITY WORKER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, NALLILA) KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.SELVAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE DY.CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KOTTARAKKARA. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KUNDARA. 4. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ WP(C).No. 7130/2005(W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF MEMO OF CHARGES ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER GBI/DISC ACTION/2000/881 DATED 21/08/2001. P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 20/09/2001 DENYING THE MEMO CHARGES. P3: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 26/07/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER. P4: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 23/09/2003 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. P5: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 07/11/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P6: COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18/12/2003 ISSUED BY THE EXE.ENGINEER TO THE PETITIONER. P7: COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 03/01/2004 FILED BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. P7(a):COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 0/01/2005 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. P8: COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER NO.GB2/DIS/PRO/05/1418 DATED 27/01/2005 ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE SVS/ S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.7130 OF 2005 ------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is Lineman Gr.I in the services of the Kerala State Electricity Bord. While he was working as Electricity Worker, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing Ext.P1 charge memo. The petitioner denied the charges. An enquiry was conducted. By Ext.P3 enquiry report, the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of one charge out of three charges. By Ext.P4 show cause notice, the disciplinary authority found the petitioner guilty of the third charge also without going the petitioner any notice to show cause why the disciplinary authority should not differ from the findings of the enquiry officer on charge 3 with reasons in support thereof and directed him to show cause why the punishment of barring of three increments with cumulative effect should not be imposed on him. Despite Ext.P5 reply filed by the petitioner, by Ext.P6 order, that punishment was confirmed. The petitioner filed Ext.P7 appeal W.P.(c)No.7130/05 2 before the appellate authority along with Ext.P7(a) petition to condone the delay. That was rejected by Ext.P8 order on the ground that the appeal filed, does not conform to regulations 28 and 38 of Kerala State Electricity Board Employees' CCA Regulations. The petitioner is challenging EXts.P1, P6 and P8 in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner raises several contentions. First is that the enquiry is vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice. According to him, the petitioner had sought production of certain documents, which was refused to be produced on the ground that they were lost. Secondly, the petitioner wanted the Board to produce certain witnesses who are the employees of the Board, which was not considered. A further contention of the petitioner is that the enquriy officer found the petitioner guilty of only one charge, whereas the disciplinary authority has, without any notice to the petitioner regarding disagreement with the conclusions of the enquiry officer, straight away found the petitioner guilty of another misconduct also, which is against settled legal position. The petitioner would further contend that in any event, the petitioner was not guilty of the misconduct found proved by W.P.(c)No.7130/05 3 the enquiry officer also. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. But the learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board seeks to justify the impugned orders on the basis of the documents on record. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. There is substance in the contention of the petitioner that in view of the regulations applicable, which stipulate that when witnesses, who are the employees of the Board are cited, the Board shall cause to produce the same. So also there is merit in the contention of the petitioner that the enquiry is vitiated for non-production of the documents called for. But in view of the fact that I am satisfied that the petitioner is not guilty of any misconduct, I am not going into these contentions in detail. 5. By Ext.P1 charge memo, the petitioner was charged with three misconducts which are: (1) the petitioner while working at Nellila Station as Electricity Worker refused to take cut off readings in connection with introduction of spot billing system. W.P.(c)No.7130/05 4 (2) the petitioner marked attendance without doing the assigned job. (3) the petitioner betrayed the Brand by giving false information that the delinquent is unable to do the duty of a workman being medically fit. The enquiry officer has found the petitioner not guilty of charge numbers 2 and 3. As far as the first charge is concerned, it is not in dispute before me that the duty which the petitioner refused to do was taking meter reading for the purpose of spot billing. Evidently, that is the duty of the Meter Readers. The contention of the respondents is that since the Meter Readers were in short supply, the Electricity Workers were directed to do the work. But it is more or less clear that the same was not part of the duties of an Electricity worker. This is clear from the fact that about a week after initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the Board issued a Circular to the effect that only willing Electricity Workers shall be compelled to do the work of meter reading. This would go to show that the meter reading was not part of the duties of the Electricity Worker. If that is not part of the duties of the Electricity Worker, the petitioner could not have been compelled to do W.P.(c)No.7130/05 5 the work of meter reading and he cannot be proceeded against for not doing that work, in so far as he is expected to do only the work of Electricity Worker. Therefore, the finding of the enquiry officer that the petitioner is guilty of the first charge is patently perverse and on that ground the enquiry itself is vitiated. 6. As far as the other charges are concerned, when the enquiry officer himself found the petitioner not guilty of those charges, the disciplinary authority could not have without following the procedure prescribed like giving notice for disagreement to the petitioner with reasons for disagreement and hearing him, found the petitioner guilty of the other misconducts. Therefore, the finding of the disciplinary authority that the petitioner is guilty of the third charge also is clearly unsustainable. Even otherwise the enquiry officer has given very cogent reasons for finding the petitioner not guilty of that charge. Even in his order, the disciplinary authority has not stated as to on what basis he found the petitioner guilty of that misconduct. From the above discussion, it is clear that the petitioner could not have been found guilty of any misconduct as per the charge sheet. Consequently, the W.P.(c)No.7130/05 6 impugned orders are unsustainable. Accordingly, they are quashed. The writ petition is allowed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.7130/05 7