IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 33404 of 2003(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- B.INDIRAKUMARY, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRIITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER(HRN), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE OFFICE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KOTTARAKKARA. ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.C.C.THOMAS SC SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB FOR R1TO3 SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1TO3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.9.2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 33404/03. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DTD.3.1.03. P2. COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.20.1.2003. P3. COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD.21.4.03. P4. COPY OF THE REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTIE DTD.12.5.03. P5. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.22.5.03 BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE KERALA POWER BOARD OFFICERS' FEDERATION TO R1. P6. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.25.8.03 BY R1. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.33404 of 2003 ================== Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board at the time of filing this writ petition. She later retired from service. She is challenging Ext.P6 order of punishment, wherein, the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of barring of one increment without cumulative effect for a period of one year. The petitioner was served with Ext.P1 memo of charges with the allegation that she delayed action on a file relating to disciplinary proceedings against some other employees for which she is liable to be proceeded against in disciplinary action. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 reply to the memo of charges, stating that she was not responsible for the delay as the file in question was being handled by the Deputy Chief Engineer and Section Assistant without routing the same through the petitioner. Despite the said reply, the 1st respondent again issued Ext.P3 show cause notice directing the petitioner to show cause why two increments of the petitioner shall not be barred with cumulative effect for the alleged misconduct. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 reply again taking the very same defence. According to the petitioner, the President of the Kerala Power Board Officers' Federation, in which the petitioner was a member, reported to the 1st respondent that the W.P.C.33404/03 2 petitioner was innocent of the charges levelled against her and the real offender was the then Deputy Chief Engineer and the Section Assistant. However, the 1st respondent passed Ext.P6 order, imposing the punishment of barring of one increment without cumulative effect on the petitioner without stating any reason at all for arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the alleged misconduct. The petitioner is challenging that order in this writ petition. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed contending that admittedly the petitioner was working in the particular section during the period in question. On an enquiry it was found that three Deputy Chief Engineers, six Senior Superintendents including th petitioner and one Senior Assistant were collectively responsible for the delay in processing the disciplinary file and, therefore, all of them were issued with memo of charges initiating disciplinary action. It is pursuant to the same, Ext.P6 order of punishment on the petitioner was issued, is the contention raised in the counter affidavit. According to the 1st respondent, since the petitioner was working in the particular section during the period in question, she cannot escape from the responsibility of not processing the file expeditiously and, therefore, she is guilty of the misconduct alleged against her. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Ext.P6 order reads thus: W.P.C.33404/03 3 “ O R D E R Smt.B.Indira Kumari, Senior Superintendent, Ele. Circle, Kottarakkara had committed serious dereliction of duty and was charge sheeted vide paper read as Ist above for the following charges. 1. Due to supervisory lapse and inaction on her part, the orders of the Chairman to initiate disciplinary action against the officials of Ele. Major Section, Pathanapuram for unauthorised absence had not been implemented in time. Inspite of repeated reminders nothing had been done by her for months together which proved her wilful intention to shield the delinquents, wilful insubordination and indiscipline. 2. The written statement of defence to the Memo of charges submitted by her vide paper read as 2nd above was found to be unsatisfactory. Hence a Show Cause Notice was issued to the delinquent vide paper read as 3rd above proposing the punishment of barring the delinquents next two increments with cumulative effect. The reply submitted by the delinquent to the Show Cause Notice vide paper read as 4th above has been examined in detail with the entire records of the case and the undersigned is fully convinced that she had actually perpetrated the acts described in Memo of Charges and deserve proper punishment for the proven acts of misconducts. However, taking a lenient view the punishment proposed is hereby reduced. It is hereby ordered that the next increment of Smt.B.Indira Kumari, Senior Superintendent, Electrical Circle, Kottarakkara is bared (sic) without cumulative effect for the period of one year.” In the order, except the statement that the Disciplinary authority is fully convinced that the petitioner had actually perpetrated the action described in the memo of charges, there is absolutely no reasoning whatsoever as to how she is guilty. Just because the petitioner was also working in the particular department, wherein admittedly 5 other Senior Superintendents, three Deputy Chief Engineers and one Senior Assistant were working, the petitioner does not become guilty, if she W.P.C.33404/03 4 did not actually deal with the file. The petitioner's specific contention in the two replies filed by her is that she did not deal with the file and the file was dealt with directly by the Senior Assistant and the Deputy Chief Engineer. Therefore, without a finding to the effect that the explanation given by the petitioner is not acceptable, since she had actually dealt with the file and delayed processing the same, the petitioner could not have been punished for the alleged misconduct. If the petitioner had dealt with the file in question, certainly there would have been some indication in the file to the effect that the petitioner had dealt with that file. Neither in Ext.P6 order nor in the counter affidavit is there even a whisper to the effect that the petitioner had dealt with the concerned file. Without a finding to that effect, the petitioner could not have been found guilty of any misconduct whatsoever. Therefore, clearly Ext.P6 is vitiated for non-application of mind as well as want of reasons and is thus liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same is quashed. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge W.P.C.33404/03 5