IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 4656 of 2007(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- T. THULASEEDHARAN, OVERSEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM (URBAN.) BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2011,ALONG WITH WPC NO. 32738 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.4656/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, NEDUMANGAD DATED 24/4/98. P2 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13/4/2000. P3 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 8/2/2002 P4 COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN CRL.A 91/02 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 6/7/06. P5(A) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR ELECTRICITY P6 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30/11/06 P7 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7/12/06 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) Nos. 4656/2007 & 32738/2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 29th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T In both these writ petitions, the petitioners are persons who were originally dismissed from service on being convicted and sentenced under the Prevention of Corruption Act and under the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, in appeal/revision, they were acquitted by the High Court. Consequent to the acquittal, they were reinstated in service. But the Government directed that the period during which the petitioners were kept out of service on conviction including suspension be regularised as leave without allowances on condition that the leave period will not count for increment, higher grade option, accumulation of earned leave in W.P(C) No. 32738/2008, and not to treat the period of suspension as duty since he was involved in a bribery case and the acquittal is not found to be an honourable one, in the other writ petition. The contention of the petitioners is that they have been acquitted on merits and therefore under Rule 56 of Part I of KSR, they are entitled to have their period of absences from duty treated as period spent on duty. The petitioners seek the following reliefs: W.P(C) No. 4646/2007 “a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to Ext.P6 and to quash the original of the same to the extent it declines to treat the period of suspension of the petitioner as duty for all purposes. W.P(C) Nos. 4656/2007 & 32738/2008 -: 2 :- b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to treat the period of suspension of the petitioner as duty for all purposes and to grant all consequential benefits as expeditiously as possible. c) to declare that the respondents cannot assign different meaning to the word “acquittal” mentioned in Rule 18(b) of Kerala Civil Services (CCA) Rules. W.P(C) No. 32738/2008 “a) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext.P5 and to quash the same. b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to grant all benefits to the petitioner during the period for which he was out of service from 4.2.2003 to 24.4.2006.” 2. The State has filed a counter affidavit supporting the impugned orders. 3. The question of treating the period of absence from duty as period spent on duty arises only if the petitioners have been acquitted of blame, which is the settled law. In W.P(C) No. 32738/2008, Ext.P1 is the judgment acquitting him. The operative portion of Ext.P1 judgment specifically states that the petitioner is acquitted giving the benefit of doubt. The judgment of this Court in the other writ petition is Ext.P4, wherein also it is specifically stated that the petitioner therein has been given the benefit of doubt. That being so, the petitioners have not been acquitted of blame, which is a necessary requirement for treating their period of absence from duty as period spent on duty. On W.P(C) Nos. 4656/2007 & 32738/2008 -: 3 :- going through the impugned orders, I am satisfied that the Government has exercised their discretion properly and there is no reason to interfere with those orders. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/