IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 12989 of 2008(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SUBHASH.R., CASHIER (UNDER SUSPENSION), ELECTRICAL SECTION, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.M.SASINDRAN. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL DIVISION), PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KSEB, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, MANJERI. *ADDL.R4 & R5 IMPLEADED: 4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME DETACHMENT, MALAPPURAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF POWER, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL.R4 & R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 07/10/08 IN I.A. NO. 12743/2008. R1 TO R3 BY MR. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.12989/2008-U: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. GB1/SUSPENSION/2005-06/1445 DTD 31/08/2005. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DTD. 03/09/2005. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. GB1/CASHMISSING-PMNA/07-08/1872 DTD. 14/11/2007. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 02/01/2008 IN W.P.(C).NO.106/2008. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD. 21/01/2008 BEFORE THE R.3. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. EB1/5750/05/CASH MISSING/802 DTD. 22/03/2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FACT DTD. 15/05/2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).12989/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner while working as Cashier in the Electricity Board, was suspended as per Ext.P1 order. The allegation is that an amount of Rs.9,33,735/-, collected on 27.8.2005 by the Cashiers of the Electrical Section, Perinthalmanna, was found missing. Cashiers at the relevant time were the petitioner, Mr.P.K.Mohammed Ashraf and Mr.Suresh Babu V.P. All of them were placed under suspension as per Ext.P1. Petitioner had approached this Court earlier challenging the order of suspension and the same led to Ext.P5 judgment. The operative portion of the same reads as follows:- “In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to prefer an appeal against Ext.P4 before the concerned Deputy Chief Engineer. If it is so done, within a period of four weeks from today, it shall be considered on merits and disposed of within a period of two months thereafter. The Deputy Chief Engineer will refer to the contention that the petitioner W.P.(C).12989/2008 2 was not originally engaged as Cashier and also that he is not an accused in any crime. Taking note of the fact that the original suspension was in the year 2005 the Deputy Chief Engineer may also consider whether the petitioner could be accommodated in any other non sensitive post, as a condition for revoking the suspension of the petitioner.” 2. Pursuant to the same, Ext.P6 appeal submitted by the petitioner seeking revocation of suspension, was considered by the Deputy Chief Engineer and Ext.P7 order was passed by him. This has been challenged in this writ petition. 3. I heard Mr. Sasindran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Asok M.Cherian, learned senior counsel for the Electricity Board. 4. The reasons given in Ext.P7 order declining the revocation of suspension cannot be considered as unreasonable or unjustified. The crime which has been registered in relation to the cash missing from the Perinthalmanna Office has led to an investigation. W.P.(C).12989/2008 3 Petitioner, along with two other cashiers, are stated to be the prime suspects going by Ext.R1(a) statement of facts furnished by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Detachment, Malappuram. If that be so, it cannot be said that the Board is acting illegally in not revoking the suspension. 5. Mr.Sasindran submits that there was a direction in Ext.P5 judgment to consider the claim of reinstatement in a non sensitive post. It is evident from paragraph 8 of the writ petition that there are vacancies in the post of Junior Assistant, which is an equivalent post and therefore, petitioner should be reinstated therein, it is contended. 6. It may be that there are vacancies in a non sensitive post where the petitioner and others can be reinstated. But in circumstances where the final report is yet to be laid, Board cannot be compelled to nevertheless reinstate the petitioner either in the post of Cashier or in a non sensitive post. But at the same time, it is necessary to fix a time frame for the continued suspension of the petitioner. W.P.(C).12989/2008 4 7. Accordingly, It is ordered that if the final report in Crime No.714/05 of the Perinthalmanna police station (referred to in Ext.R1a) is not filed before the concerned Court within a period of six months from today, then, the petitioner shall be reinstated in a non sensitive post in any place within the State. If the final report is submitted within the said time frame, then, it is open to the petitioner to file a fresh representation, which shall then be considered in accordance with law, by the competent authority. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs