IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 11586 of 2005(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ABDUL HAMEED K., ASSISTANT ENGINEER, BOARD SECRETARIAT, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.S.RAMESH BABU. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, NORTH VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KALPETTA. R1 TO R4 BY MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC,KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.11586/2005-D: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 05/12/2002. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 21/06/1997. EXT.P.2.A: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DTD. 06/10/1997. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 29/12/2001 FROM THE R.4. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD. 07/01/2002. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD. 30/07/2002. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 27/11/2002. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DTD. 02/12/2002. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 19/12/2002. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 13/07/2004 IN W.P.(C).NO.20584/2004. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF HEARING. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 16/09/04. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 28/12/04. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 29/04/1997. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE MASA SHEET. EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 01/11/2002 ACCOMPANIED BY TWO DETAILED LISTS. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.11586 of 2005 -------------------------- Dated this the 12th January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a retired Assistant Engineer of the Kerala State Electricity Board. He retired from service on 30.6.2002 on attaining superannuation. However, his DCRG and Commuted Value of pension were withheld for want of Non-Liability Certificate. According to the petitioner, he had received NLC from all the places where he had worked except from Vythiri under the Electrical Major Section, Kalpetta. The petitioner had worked as a Sub Engineer at the said station for the period from 5.1.1993 to 31.10.1995. During the period from July 1993 to 15.7.1994, he was holding the charge of Assistant Engineer also since Sri.G.Premkumar, the person who was posted there was absent. It is the case of the petitioner that no formal CTC was signed between Sri.Premkumar and the petitioner. During this period, the petitioner had drawn materials for various works that were in progress. On his return, Sri.Premkumar assumed charge as Assistant Engineer on 15.7.1994 and thereafter he is alleged to W.P ( C) No.11586 of 2005 2 have regularised all the transactions in accordance with rules. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that during his tenure as Sub Engineer, he had failed to properly maintain the accounts for the period that he was holding charge as Assistant Engineer of the Section. Therefore, an amount of Rs.4,57,906/- was fixed as personal liability against him on account of irregularities and discrepancies in accounting and issuing of materials during the said period. Irregularities alleged against the petitioner are under four heads:- i. Short accounting of materials worth Rs.87,300/- in MASA during the period from 7/1993 to 15.7.1994 . ii. Non accounting of materials worth Rs.2,81,680 drawn through MRCI by the petitioner in MRCI during the period from 7/1994 to 8/1994. iii. Non accounting of taken back materials from field after maintenance work worth Rs.56,651/- in MASA. iv. Issuing out materials worth Rs.32,275/- without any details of work. W.P ( C) No.11586 of 2005 3 3. The total liability fixed on the petitioner under the above four heads is Rs.4,57,906/-. 4. The petitioner was issued with Ext.P5 show cause notice and asked to explain the reason for the above irregularities. Ext.P7 shows that the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply explaining the reason for the irregularities that were detected. However, without considering the explanation of the petitioner, the Deputy Chief Engineer, the 4th respondent fixed an amount of Rs. 4,57,906/- on the petitioner as liability. The petitioner challenged the said proceedings of the Deputy Chief Engineer, Ext.P8 before this Court in W.P (C) No.20584 of 2004 (A). As per Ext.P9 judgment dated 13.7.2004, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the Chief Engineer , Distribution (North). K.S.E.B., Kozhikode to consider and pass final orders on the contentions of the petitioner. Accordingly, Ext.P10 order has been passed by the Chief Engineer. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for the W.P ( C) No.11586 of 2005 4 Kerala State Electricity Board in extenso. My attention has also been drawn to the documents in the case. I have considered the rival contentions anxiously. 6. As noted above, though the petitioner had submitted Ext.P7 reply to the show cause notice submitting his explanations in detail to the various discrepancies and irregularities alleged against him, his explanation has not been considered in Ext.P10, with reference to the records like the MASA and other relevant registers and documents maintained by the petitioner at the time of releasing the materials or drawing them from the store for the works that were in progress. It is also explained that he was sick and laid up at the time when the vigilance case was conducted and his representative was not given an effective opportunity for placing his case before the authority and submitting proof in support of his contentions. The case of the petitioner is that he was only officiating as an Assistant Engineer, that Sri.Premkumar was the Assistant Engineer actually posted at the station and that the said Premkumar was the person who had the responsibility of sorting out the W.P ( C) No.11586 of 2005 5 irregularities if any. However, the above facts have not been taken note of or considered by the Chief Engineer. 7. Further, the case of the petitioner that show cause notice was issued to him only after 9 years of his relinquishing charge of the station has also not been considered. The petitioner also has a case that no amount was liable to be recovered from his DCRG in view of Rule 3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. However, without considering any of the above contentions, the authority in Ext.P12 has only granted a marginal reduction in the amount sought to be recovered from him. On a proper quantification, the petitioner submits that no amount would be found due from him. In view of the fact that the contentions of the petitioner have not been properly considered with reference to the basic records on which the irregularities are alleged to have been detected, Ext.P12 cannot be sustained. 8. In view of the above, Ext.P12 is set aside. The third respondent is directed to consider and take a fresh decision on the petitioner's appeal. The 3rd respondent shall also consider whether any amount can be W.P ( C) No.11586 of 2005 6 imposed as liability on the petitioner in the light of the explanation offered by him and in the light of the provisions contained in Rule 3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. The question of recovery of any amount from the DCRG of the petitioner can arise only after such a consideration and fixation of liability is made. A decision in this regard shall be taken by the 3rd respondent and appropriate orders shall be passed in the matter, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. The petitioner shall also be heard in the matter before a final decision is taken. This writ petition is disposed of as above. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE ma W.P ( C) No.11586 of 2005 7 W.P ( C) No.11586 of 2005 8