IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 26127 of 2003(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.ABDUL AZEEZ, (RETIRED DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KSEB), RESIDING AT PUTHENVILA VEEDU, AERAM, THADICADU P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN SC FOR K.S.E.B. SRI. C.K. KARUNAKARAN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2009, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 26127/2003. ------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF MEMO OF CHARGES DST. 29-6-2001. EXT.P2 COPY OF HANDING OVER STATEMENT. EXT.P3 REPLY DT. 12-12-2001. EXT.P4 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT. 29-3-2003. EXT.P5 REPLY DT. 11-4-2003. EXT.P6 ORDER DT. 14-6-2003. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 26127 of 2003 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 15th September, 2009. J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging Ext. P1 memo of charges and Ext. P4 show cause notice directing him to show cause why the punishment of recovery of an amount of Rs. 32,500/- should not be imposed on him. Although, by Ext. P6 order, that proposal has been confirmed, the petitioner has not included a prayer for quashing the same in the writ petition. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a mistake. It is actually Ext. P6 that is under challenge and not Ext. P4, is the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that in the enquiry, the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty. Despite the same, the disciplinary authority has issued Ext. P4 show cause notice for imposition of punishment, which is unsustainable. The petitioner also submits that the enquiry officer having found the petitioner not guilty of the charges of misconduct, no punishment could have been imposed on the petitioner. He has a specific contention that the enquiry report was not furnished to him in spite of a specific request in that regard made in Ext. P5 reply given to Ext. P4 show cause notice. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition. Standing counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board is not in a position to prove before me that the enquiry report has been furnished to the petitioner. But, it is admitted that in the enquiry report, the petitioner has been exonerated from the charges. Even if Ext. P4 show cause notice is considered as a show cause notice as to why the disciplinary authority should not differ with the findings of the enquiry officer, the matter cannot be proceeded with, without furnishing the petitioner with a copy of the enquiry report, the W.P.C. No. 26127/03 -: 2 :- findings in which the disciplinary authority intended to differ with. On that short ground, Ext. P6 order is liable to be quashed. I do so. 4. The petitioner has already retired from service. Therefore, if the disciplinary authority has still powers to continue the disciplinary proceedings, he may do so, in respect of which I am not expressing any opinion. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/