IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2009 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 18933 of 2006(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ANILKUMAR. K, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, VILAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, KEEZHUVILOM.P.O, MAMAM, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. WHO TERMINATED FROM SERVICE AS PER EXHIBIT P9 ORDER DATED 17/07/06 FROM THE POST OF ELECTRIC WORKER (MAZDOOR), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAKKOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.SIBY MATHEW MR.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED THE CHIEF ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (URBAN), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICIY BOARD, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BORAD, VAKKOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V.T.K. MOHANAN R2 TO R5 BY ADV. MR. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB, ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 18933/2006-D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE INTIMATION LETTER DATED 01/01/2005. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PERFORMA SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 16/02/2005. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE INTIMATION LETTER DATED 21/02/2005. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23/05/2005. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 27/04/2005. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE CERTIFICTE DATED 24/02/2006. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 07/07/2006. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 17/07/2006. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE TERMINATION ORDER DATED 17/07/2006. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN SC NO.112/1989 DATED 31/10/1990. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE G.O.MS NO.427 DATED 08/04/1958. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rs/ P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 18933 of 2006 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 30th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P9 order passed by the third respondent whereby he was removed from the service after putting an end to the provisional appointment given to him as stated in Ext.P3, pursuant to the satisfaction recorded by the appointment authority that the character and antecedents of the petitioner were not at all fit enough to appoint the petitioner and continue him in the employment under rule 10 (b) (iii) of Part II of KSR & SR, in view of the conviction ordered by the Sessions Court in S.C 112 of 1989 imposing the punishment of Rigorous Imprisonment for five years, which stands confirmed by this Court as per judgment in Crl. Appeal 392 of 1990. 2. With regard to facts in brief, petitioner's case is that, pursuant to Ext.P1 'advice memo' issued by the P.S.C. for regular selection and appointment to the post of Mazdoor in the 2nd respondent Board, petitioner submitted Ext.P2 performa before the Board, based on which, he was given provisional appointment as per Ext.P3. It is submitted by the petitioner that he had made a declaration in Ext.P2 (vide the entry in column No. 9) that he was convicted by the Sessions Court (2nd Addl.), Trivandrum in S.C. 89/112. By Ext.P3 proceedings dated 21.2.2005, the 3rd respondent had given necessary instructions to the WPC No. 18933 of 2006 : 2 : 4th respondent to admit petitioner provisionally, till police verification report regarding the antecedents and character of the petitioner were obtained; which accordingly was sought for from the concerned Superintendent of Police, vide Ext.P4. 3. Petitioner submits that in view of the Ext.P5 certificate issued by the Superintendent of Central Jail, Thiruvananthapuram and Ext.P6 certificate issued by the KSEB as to the conduct and character of the petitioner, there was no reason whatsoever for the Board to have issued Ext.P7 show-cause memo/charge to the petitioner, asking explanation to be submitted within 7 days, as to why his service shall not be put an end into in view of the conviction and sentence. 4. It is submitted by the petitioner that on receipt of Ext.P7 (allegedly on 10.7.2006) he preferred Ext.P8 reply dated 17.7.06 before the third respondent, who however did not choose to consider the same and passed Ext.P9 on 17.7.2006 i.e. prior to the receipt of his Ext.P8 explanation, which is subjected to challenge in the present writ petition. 5. The second respondent Board has filed counter affidavit, referring to the sequence of events, giving the minute details as to the custody of the petitioner, sentence undergone by him pursuant to the conviction passed by the Sessions Court, Kottayam and as to the WPC No. 18933 of 2006 : 3 : judgment passed by this Court dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 392 of 1990 preferred by the petitioner, thus confirming conviction and sentence. Referring to Rule 10 of Part II of KS & SSR which deals with the qualification for appointment, the Board asserts that nobody shall be eligible for appointments to any service unless the State Government is satisfied as to the character and antecedents of the person selected/advised for appointment by direct recruitment. The authority can appoint only temporarily under Rule 9 (a) (1) of the Rules, subject to the condition that this appointment could be terminated if the Government is not satisfied of the character and antecedents on subsequent verification. Reliance is also placed on the decision rendered on by this Court in Sukumaran Vs. Union of India (1998 (2) KLT 242). Petitioner has filed reply to the counter affidavit reiterating contentions in the writ petition contending that absolutely no reason has been stated by the 3rd respondent in Ext.P9 order of termination but for the conviction and sentence ordered by the Sessions Court. The learned counsel submits that the above factum of conviction had already been conceded by the petitioner as given in column No.9 of Ext.P2 performa submitted before the Board and that there was nothing new in it. It is also submitted that if the aforesaid conviction alone was the reason, the second respondent Board could have acted on the WPC No. 18933 of 2006 : 4 : basis of his admission given in Ext.P2 perform itself and the Board had no necessity or occasion to seek for the particulars from the Superintendent of Police vide Ext.P4. 6. In this context, it is relevant to note that the statement of the petitioner given in column No.9 of Ext.P2 is only that he was convicted by the Sessions Court (2nd Additional), Trivandrum in SC 89/112 (actually session case No. 112/1989). The details sought for under sub clause (b) of Clause 9 in Ext.P2 as to the particulars of the offence or the extent of punishment and such other details are evidently not given. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the request made by the 3rd respondent to the Superintendent of Police vide Ext.P4 was only to verify the character and antecedents with the regard to the involvement of the petitioner “in any case other than the one stated as above and his suitability for appointment” and therefore that the second respondent Board admittedly having had not obtained any adverse report in respect of “any other case”, it was not at all correct or proper for the Board to have had relied on the sole incident of conviction by the Sessions Court as conceded by the petitioner in column No.9 of Ext.P2, leading to Ext.P9 order of removal from the service. WPC No. 18933 of 2006 : 5 : 7. This Court finds it very difficult to accept the above proposition for the plain reason that the details of conviction as specifically sought for vide sub clause 9 of Ext.P2 have not been furnished by the petitioner as stated above (regarding the offence, extent of punishment etc.) Similarly, the fact that the said conviction had become final on dismissal of the appeal preferred before this Court (in Criminal Appeal 392 of 1990) has also not been stated therein or even in the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason for not mentioning the particulars of appeal might be since the petitioner had already come out of the jail, undergoing the punishment by that time. Any how, the non submission of the details naturally enables Government/Board to collect such requisite materials before arriving at the satisfaction. That apart, the request made by the 3rd respondent in Ext.P4 to furnish the particulars of character and antecedents with regard to the petitioner's involvement in any case other than the one stated therein cannot persuade this Court for drawing an inference that the Board had no complaint with regard to the conviction of the petitioner under Section 304 B of the IPC, in a crime registered under Section 302 of the IPC, It only means that the incident already mentioned therein was very much known to the Board and that the Board only wanted to ascertain further particulars in WPC No. 18933 of 2006 : 6 : respect of involvement of the petitioner, in such other cases if any, so as to analyse and ascertain the character and antecedents of the petitioner in a more effective manner. 8. With regard to the submission of the petitioner that Ext.P6 show cause notice and memo of charges were served to him only on 10.7.2006, absolutely no materials have been produced to arrive at such a conclusion. Equally or more so is the position when Ext.P8 explanation submitted by the petitioner before the third respondent does not show that it was sent by registered post or against proper acknowledgment or submitted directly. No postal receipt or postal acknowledgment card has been produced to persuade this Court to arrive at any such interference. According to the petitioner, he was having time till 16.7.2006 as he had received Ext.P6 proceedings only on 10.7.2006 and as such, Ext.P9 proceedings could not have been issued on 17.7.2006. The admitted fact remains that the petitioner was served with Ext.P7 atleast on 10.7.2006 and that nothing prevented him from submitting Ext. P8 reply within the specified time by registered post or even otherwise. Only explanation submitted by the petitioner, as contained in Ext.P8 is that his conviction and sentence had already been declared by him in Ext.P2 and that he had already undergone/suffered the punishment years back and hence that he WPC No. 18933 of 2006 : 7 : could not be sent out of the employment on the basis of such conviction and sentence suffered by him years back. This means, the petitioner does not have any other explanation to be offered in response to Ext.P6 and hence this will not tilt the balance so as to conclude that any prejudice was caused to him. It is also relevant to note that the factum of conviction by the Session Court has been admitted by the petitioner; and the admitted fact does not require to be proved by virtue of Section 58 of the Evidence Act. Petitioner appears to be very much aware of the consequence of Rule 10 (b) (iii). Obviously it is for this reason that the petitioner sought for interference of this Court to declare Rule 10 (b) (iii) of Part II of KS & SSR as illegal unconstitutional. But for the sole prayer raised in the petition absolutely nothing else has been stated or produced to substantiate the illegality or unconstitutionality of the Rule and as such the challenge against the rule is devoid of any merit. 9. Rule 10 (b) (iii) clearly shows that satisfaction of the Government as to the character and antecedents of the concerned employee is a pre-requisite. In view of the facts and figures discussed above, the Board, after analysing the facts and figures arrived at a decision that petitioner was not a fit person to be permitted to continue in service and accordingly, he was removed from the service vide Ext.P9. Taking note of the entire facts and circumstances, no WPC No. 18933 of 2006 : 8 : interference with Ext.P9 order is called for. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd