IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16616 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SUNDARAN M.T., AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. LATE THANKAPPAN, LINEMAN GRADE-I, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, CHERPLASSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED SHIRAZ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), K.S.E.B., VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KSEB, PALAKKAD. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KSEB, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB FOR R1-4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.16616/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF MEMO NO.EB8/DISC.ACTION/2004- 05/441 DT 3.6.2004. EXT.P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY OF PETITIONER. EXT.P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO.EB/ESD/SLT/ENQ/MTS/06- 07/23.3.2007. EXT.P3(a): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT. EXT.P4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY D 4.8.2007 OF PETITIONER. EXT.P5: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.EB4/16/2007-08/1216 DT 9.10.2007 OF 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DT 14.12.2007. EXT.P7: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.EB4/DA-GENL/08-09/112 DT 15.4.2008. EXT.P8: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.EBVS.7/21/2008/153 DT 2/2009. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 16616 OF 2009 (V) ===================== Dated this the 21st day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T During 2004, petitioner was working as Lineman in the Electrical Section, Kongad, Palakkad District. It is stated that, while so, on 16/5/2004, an over head electric line in that area snapped, as a result of which, a lady and a child who were working in the ground came into contact with live electric wire and were electrocuted. 2. This incident led to Ext.P1 memo of charges issued against the petitioner. There were three charges. They are (1) negligence and dereliction by not switching off the supply even though it was informed to the petitioner. (2) that he engaged unauthorised persons for electric line work and (3) that he was guilty of non rectification of defect, which was reportedly intimated to him in time. A written statement of defence was filed and as that was not satisfactory to the disciplinary authority. Accordingly, an Assistant Executive Engineer was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. Witnesses were examined and documents were received in evidence. Finally, Ext.P3(a) enquiry WPC No. 16616/09 :2 : report was submitted by the enquiry officer. The findings in the report suggests that first part of the Charge No.1 was held proved and the second charge of engaging unauthorised person in the electrical maintenance work was also held proved. The findings of the third charge suggest that it was held not proved. 3. After considering the representation made by the petitioner to the punishment proposed, Ext.P5 order was issued by the disciplinary authority, the Executive Engineer, imposing a punishment of barring of one increment with cumulative effect for a period of one year. Against this order, petitioner filed Ext.P6 appeal to the 3rd respondent, the Appellate Authority and Ext.P7 is the order that is passed rejecting the appeal. Petitioner filed a review before the 2nd respondent, which also was rejected by Ext.P8. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 4. Although the petitioner has several contentions on merits, I do not think, in the nature of the findings of the Appellate and Revisional Authorities, it is necessary for this Court to enter into the controversial areas. In Ext.P7 order rejecting Ext.P6 appeal filed by the petitioner, all that is stated by the Appellate Authority is that he examined the case of the WPC No. 16616/09 :3 : petitioner in detail with reference to the relevant records of the case, that the charges proved against the petitioner are grave and that the punishment imposed is reasonable. On this basis, appeal was rejected and punishment is confirmed. This finding of the Appellate Authority has been confirmed by the Reviewing Authority as well. 5. Counsel for the petitioner rightly attacks Ext.P7 order of the Appellate Authority on the ground that the appeal has been rejected without any application of mind. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment in Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney {(2009) 4 SCC 240} in support of this contention. The relevant portion of the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner reads as under: 5. In our opinion, an order of affirmation need not contain as elaborate reasons as an order of reversal, but that does not mean that the order of affirmation need not contain any reasons whatsoever. In fact, the said decision in Prabhu Dayal Grover case has itself stated that the appellate order should disclose application of mind. Whether there was an application of mind or not can only be disclosed by some reasons, at least in brief, mentioned in the order of the appellate authority. Hence, we cannot accept the proposition that an order of affirmation need not WPC No. 16616/09 :4 : contain any reasons at all. That order must contain some reasons, at least in brief, so that one can know whether the appellate authority has applied its mind while affirming the order of the disciplinary authority. 6. The view we are taking was also taken by this Court in Divl.Forest Officer v. Madhusudhan Rao (vide SCC para 20: JT para 19) and in M.P.Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, Siemens Engg. & Mfg.Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India (vide SCC para 6: AIR para 6),etc. 7. In the present case, since the appellate authority's order does not contain any reasons, it does not show any application of mind. 6. If the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment are applied to the facts as disclosed in Ext.P7 order of the Appellate Authority, in my view, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. A reading of Ext.P7 shows that apart from stating that the Appellate Authority has considered the case of the petitioner with reference to the records of the case, the Appellate Authority has not dealt with any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in the appeal filed by him. Thus, the Appellate order is bad for non application of mind, and for that reason, deserves to be set aside. 7. Accordingly Ext.P7 order and consequently Ext.P8 order are set aside. 3rd respondent is directed to reconsider WPC No. 16616/09 :5 : Ext.P6 appeal, adverting to the contentions raised by the petitioner and with notice to him. Orders shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp