IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 25TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 33154 of 2006(V) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SATHIAKUMAR T.A., S/O.T.A.APPUKUTTY, THEKKENANGADI HOUSE, KADAMPZHIPPURAM P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT), VYDHYUDI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICITY DIVISION (WEST), THRISSUR. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. K.S. ANIL, SC, KSEB R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.33154/2006 V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE MEMO OF APPOINTMENT DTD. 27/04/2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE ATTESTATION FORM FILLED UP AND SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 26/05/2006. P3: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 7/12/2006. P4: COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT DTD. 20/09/2006 OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. P5: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 30/10/2006 OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. P6: COPY OF THE O.S.NO.386 OF 2006 PENDING BEFORE THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. P7: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 07/04/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.33514 OF 2006 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as a Meter Reader in the Kerala State Electricity Board. He was appointed in service by memo dated 27.4.2006. At the time of joining duty, the petitioner was made to fill up and sign Ext.P2 attestation form. On the basis of Exts.P4 and P5 reports to the effect that a civil case was pending against the petitioner, at the time of appointment, the petitioner was proceeded against for termination from service. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext.P4 and P5 reports of the 3rd respondent b) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext P3 communication of the 2nd respondent requesting the 1st respondent to take action against the petitioner c) Declare that the petitioner is duly entitled for appointment in the Kerala Stae Electricity Board as he is not disqualified as per Ext P4 and P5 reports of the 3rd respondent d) Declare that the pendency of civil suit is not a disqualification for getting appointment and the continuance of service in the KSEB” W.P.(c)No.33154/06 2 2. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. On 12.6.2006, this Court had passed the following interim order: “The petitioner was appointed by the Kerala State Electricity Board by Ext.P1 order dated 27.4.2006. While joining service, he gave Ext.P2 declaration on 26.5.2006, stating that no criminal case is pending against him. Since he is a fresh appointee, the matter was referred for police verification. The 3rd respondent, District Superintendent of Police, by Ext.P5, reported that a civil case is pending against the petitioner as O.S.386 of 2006 before the Sub Court, Ernakulam, filed by his erstwhile employer, claiming damages, for not serving him for the period provided in the bond executed by the petitioner. The 3rd respondent also stated in Ext.P5 that, 'candidate is found not suitable for appointment in KSEB'. No man in his sense will make such a remark. Based on Ext.P5, the Executive Engineer, Electrical Divisional (West), Thrissur, sought the advice of the Chief Engineer, regarding the future course of action. I feel that compensatory cost is to be awarded to the petitioner, to be payable by the 3rd respondent and I wish to make a further order, stating that the 3rd respondent shall not be associated with verification of the antecedents of the candidates advised by the Public Service Commission, in future. If the 3rd respondent has got anything to say in the matter, he may file an affidavit within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Registry shall send a copy of this order to the 3rd respondent, immediately, at the expense of the petitioner. 3. An affidavit has been filed by the third respondent, wherein the mistake is admitted. He admits that on account of pendency of the civil case, no proceedings could have been initiated against the petitioner and offering unconditional apology. W.P.(c)No.33154/06 3 In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of confirming the interim order dated 12.6.2006 and holding that the petitioner has been validly appointed in the Board service and he is entitled to continue as such. It would be open to the petitioner to take up the other claims arising from the above direction, before the Board and the Board shall consider the same appropriately in accordance with law. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.33154/06 4