IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2010 / 21ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23507 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- G.ASHOK KUMAR, SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE EECTRICITY BOARD, KUTHIATHODU. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004. 2. CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDVYDHYUTHIBHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. 3. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ERNAKULAM-682018. 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD MATTANCHERRY-682002. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 23507 OF 2010 (K) ===================== Dated this the 12th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Meter Reader under the 1st respondent Board. Ext.P1 is the memo of charges issued to the petitioner alleging the following misconducts :- 1) Dereliction of duty in taking meter reading and issue of spot bills to the consumers in the area allotted to the spot biller. 2) Willful insubordination of lawful and reasonable orders issued by his superiors. 3) Slowing down of meter reading resulting in blockage of revenue. 4) Unauthorised absence without permission. 2. Thereupon he was also placed under suspension. Petitioner submitted Ext.P2 explanation. He was reinstated in service without prejudice to the continuance of the disciplinary action. Enquiry was conducted and in Ext.P3 report submitted by the enquiry officer, the misconducts were held proved. Ext.P3 carries the endorsement of the petitioner of having received a copy of the enquiry report on 15/9/2004. 3. Disciplinary authority accepted the report and issued a show cause notice and the petitioner submitted his explanation. Thereafter by Ext.P4 order, accepting the finding of guilt entered WPC No. 23507/10 :2 : by the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of barring of one increment with cumulative effect. Petitioner filed Ext.P5 appeal before the appellate authority and in ground (c) of the appeal, it is stated by the petitioner that there has been lack of perfection in his work, but he sought to justify the imperfection, by pleading that it was not deliberate or willful. It is to be noticed in this context that in grounds of appeal, petitioner had no case that the disciplinary authority did not issue show cause notice extending him an opportunity to make representations against the findings of the enquiry officer. The appeal was considered and was rejected by Ext.P6 order. Further appeal to the Chairman was also rejected by Ext.P8. Petitioner pursued the matter by filing Ext.P9 representation to the Minister, which also was rejected by Ext.P10. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 4. The plea now raised by the counsel for the petitioner is mainly that punishment was imposed on the petitioner without affording him an opportunity to make his representations against the findings of the enquiry officer. It is pleaded that the copy of the enquiry report was not served on the delinquent. The WPC No. 23507/10 :3 : incorrectness of the said contention is obvious from the endorsement on Ext.P3 report itself to the effect that a copy has been served on the petitioner. 5. In so far as the contention that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to make his representations is concerned, Ext.P4 order of punishment itself show that show cause notice proposing the punishment on the petitioner was issued to the petitioner and he made his representation. Therefore, in that representation, petitioner had the opportunity to canvass against the findings of the enquiry officer, if he had such a case. That apart, in my view, the mere fact that a copy of the enquiry report was not served on the delinquent or that he was not afforded an opportunity to make his representations against the enquiry report, by itself, will not invalidate the punishment imposed, unless the delinquent is in a position to satisfy the Court that he has been prejudiced by such omission of the disciplinary authority. In this case, apart from the vague plea that because he was not given an opportunity, he could not satisfy the disciplinary authority about the invalidity of the enquiry, there is no specific averment in what respect the enquiry report is vitiated or in what WPC No. 23507/10 :4 : respect prejudice has been caused to him. Therefore, I am not persuaded to invalidate the proceedings on the petitioner's plea now raised. 6. Even otherwise the gravity of the misconducts is evident from the misconducts alleged. In the appeal itself, the petitioner to some extent has conceded that lapses have happened. But the only justification is that it was not deliberate. Despite the gravity of the misconduct, the only punishment is barring of one increment with cumulative effect. By no stretch of imagination, can this Court hold that the punishment imposed is one disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct proved against the petitioner. No case has been made out for interference. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp