IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31902 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M.H.HAROON SAIT, MAKAYIRAM PARAMBU, VATTAYAL WARD, THIRUVAMPADY P.O., ALAPPUZHA. (WORKING AS CASHIER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PATHIRAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA). BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS SRI.S.SHAJI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 31902 OF 2009 (G) ===================== Dated this the 9th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a Cashier in the Kerala State Electricity Board. According to him, on the allegation of temporary misappropriation, he was placed under suspension by Ext.P1 order dated 28/4/1988. It is stated that he was reinstated in service as Junior Assistant. While so, in the criminal case, he suffered conviction and sentenced for six months rigorous imprisonment by judgment dated 19/11/93. His appeal was also dismissed. 2. The respondents appear to have conducted an enquiry and an enquiry report dated 1/7/89 of Sri.V.I.Cherian, Assistant Executive Engineer is referred to in Ext.P4. By Ext.P3 order, the petitioner was removed from service w.e.f. 28/10/95. This was during the pendency of Criminal RP NO.741/95, which was disposed of by this Court by judgment dated 9/7/03 imposing imprisonment for 14 days and fine of Rs.2000/- on the petitioner. 3. Going by the petitioner's own averment, he has filed an appeal against his removal, and on that appeal Ext.P4 show cause WPC 31902/09 :2 : notice dated 19.3.2004 was issued. It is seen that in response to Ext.P4, petitioner filed his reply on 12/7/2004. The appeal was also rejected by Ext.P5. Even as per the pleadings in the writ petition, petitioner pursued the matter by filing Ext.P6, which is described as a mercy petition. That also was rejected by Ext.P7. 4. Therefore, in this writ petition the challenge is against the petitioner's removal ordered by Ext.P3 dated 28/10/95 and Ext.P5 order dated 01/02/2005 rejecting the appeal. First of all, there is inordinate delay in challenging Exts.P3 and P5 and on that ground itself, writ petition has to fail. Even otherwise, going by the Conduct Rules, conviction itself is a ground for dismissal, and if that be so, even without an enquiry, petitioner could have been dismissed. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp