IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 934 of 2008() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.12562/1997 Dated 18/08/2007 .................... APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRERSENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE CHAIRMAN KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL GENERAL) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER ----------------------------------------- C.V. THOMAS, S/O.K.T.VARGHESE SENIOR ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH ORGANISATION KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, POST PALLAM KOTTAYAM-7. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED SHIRAZ - R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- W.A.NO.934 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT Koshy, J: The respondent in this case was charge sheeted for certain misconduct. An enquiry was conducted by a Sitting District Judge. He found as follows: “On a consideration, therefore, of all the circumstances and evidence in this case I find that the charges are not proved by the Board against the delinquent officer”. 2. The finding of the enquiry officer was dated 1.4.1987. After about three years on 17.3.1990, a show cause notice proposing punishment was issued after differing from the findings of the enquiry officer. In Ext.P4 show cause notice, the reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer were not stated. Before disagreeing with the enquiry officer, the Board should have issue a show cause notice giving reasons for disagreeing. That was not done. After disagreeing with the enquiry officer, without show cause notice, the disciplinary authority issued Ext.P4 show cause notice proposing punishment. A detailed reply was filed W.A.NO.934/2008 . 2 on 26.3.1990. Again the disciplinary authority kept mum and after about 4 years on 1.8.1994, Ext.P6 show cause notice was given proposing punishment. That was also replied by Ext.P7. But finally punishment was imposed on him by Ext.P8 order. The learned Single Judge after considering the binding decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Panjab National Bank & others v. Kunj Behari Misra (1998 (7) SCC 84) and Yoginadh D. Dagde v. State of Maharashtra (1999 (7) SCC 739) held that the entire procedure adopted by the Board was illegal. No show cause notice was issued before disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer. There is clear violation of principles of natural justice. The procedure adopted by the Board is clearly victimisation. A public sector undertaking should not have done this. We fully agree with the reasonings of the leaned Single Judge. Accordingly, we dismiss the writ appeal with costs. J.B. KOSHY, JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl W.A.NO.934/2008 . 3