IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 12253 of 2005(H) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------------- A.R.RAJKUMAR, FORMER ELECTRICITY WORKER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, THIRUVALLAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.JAYASURYA RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, OFFICE OF THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ELECTRICAL DIVISION, POWER HOUSE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -23. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV.SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB FOR R1 TO 3 SRI. K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.12253/2005 H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 29/04/2002 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 15/04/2004 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.12253 of 2005 ------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT While working as an Electricity Worker in the Kerala State Electricity Board, apparently, the petitioner was absent on several occasions from 1997 onwards. Show cause notices were issued to him on more than one occasion. On some of these occasions, he did not care to give a reply, according to the Electricity Board. Ultimately, on 13.8.2001 he was posted in the Thiruvallom Section. Thereafter he remained absent on 12.9.2001 and therefore, another show cause notice was issued on 13.11.2001. He was asked to submit a reply within 15 days. He gave a reply only on 2.2.2002. Apparently, the reply was not found to be satisfactory and thereafter by Ext.P1 order dated 29.4.2002 he was removed from service. The order was challenged before the Chairman and it was affirmed by Ext.P2. Exts.P1 and P2 are challenged in this writ petition. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents pointing out that W.P.(C).NO.12253/05 :: 2 :: there was repeated absence by the petitioner. It was taking note of all these aspects, he was removed from service. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel Sri.Ashok M.Cherian. 4. The punishment imposed on the petitioner is a major penalty. A domestic enquiry was therefore necessary. Learned standing counsel for the Board submits that the petitioner did not give a reply in time and therefore, the Board was entitled to presume that he had no reply to the charges. 5. It is true that the petitioner did not give a reply within time. But admittedly, he sent a reply on 2.2.2002 which was almost 3 months prior to the date of Ext.P3. In the circumstances, it was incumbent upon the Board to conduct an enquiry following the procedure prescribed for imposition of major penalty. That has not been done. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part. Exts.P1 and P2 are set aside. The Board shall conduct an enquiry after W.P.(C).NO.12253/05 :: 3 :: considering the petitioner's reply dated 2.2.2002. Final orders on the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall co-operate with the enquiry and shall not unnecessarily seek adjournment in the conduct of the same. 7. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner shall be reinstated in the appropriate place within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. But the question of back wages will be considered only on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary enquiry is to be completed and orders are to be passed in the disciplinary proceedings . The petitioner has a claim that he was not paid subsistence allowance for the period during which he was kept under suspension. Learned counsel for the Electricity Board submits that the petitioner was never under suspension, but was remaining away. If the petitioner files a representation with regard to W.P.(C).NO.12253/05 :: 4 :: the said aspect, it shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of such representation. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//