IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 OP.No. 22864 of 2001(V) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ LORANCE.K.M. S/O.K.P.MANI, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT 33-3065-D2, VENNALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHIEF ENGINEER, HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, (K.S.E.B), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SRI.PREM SANKAR, INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, (VIGILANCE AND SECURITY) KSEB, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU.T.K. FOR R1 ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB FOR R2 & R3 SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SERNIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR KSEB - R2, R3,R4 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON 20/08/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 22864 of 2001(V) 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.14/1/2000 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODUNGALLOOR POLICE STATION. EXHIBIT P2 : PHOTO COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED BY THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 16/1/2000. EXHIBIT P3 : PHOTO COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED BY THE 'DESHABHIMANI' DAILY DATED 18/1/2001. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES ALONG WITH A STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONSA DATED 31/10/2000 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT) BEARING No.EBVS 2/42/2000. EXHIBIT P5 : PHOTO COPY OF THE REPLY DATED16/12/2000 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM). EXHIBIT P6 : PHOTO COPY OF THE CIRCULAR No.Vig.BIII.518/89 DTD /2/1990. EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE ABSTRACT OF THE BOARD ORDER DATED 13/11/1989 BEARING ORDER No. BIII.518/99(2). EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE ABSTRACT OF THE BOARD ORDER DATED 16/1/'91 BEARING ORDER No. BV 2916/90. EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.14/6/2000 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.25/5/2001 GIVEN BY THE PETITONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11/6/2001. EXHIBIT P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE MESSAGE DATED 8/6/2000. EXHIBIT P13 : PHOTO COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED TO THE K.S.E.B BY PETITIONER DTD19/9/2003. EXHIBIT P14 : PHOTO COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9/12/2004. OP.No. 22864 of 2001(V) 3 EXHIBIT P15 : PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER No.VIG/A1/3068/2000 DTD.9/4/2007. EXHIBIT P16 : PHOTO COPY OF THE REVISION DTD.8/5/2007. EXHIBIT P17 : PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER BO(FB)No.2085/2007 (VIG/A1/3068/2000)DATED 14/9/2007. EXHIBIT P18 : PHOTO COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, K.S.E.B. DTD. /8/2006. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R2(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS No.EBVS.2/33/2000, TVM,DTD.3/4/2001 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER,(HRM). EXHIBIT R2(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD.21/8/03 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R4(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT No.Vig BV/5571/EKM DTD.29/2/2000. V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P. No.22864 OF 2001 ---------------------------------------- Dated, 20th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who was working as Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB, in the Anti Power theft squad at Ernakulam at the relevant time, conducted inspection in the house of one Dr. Mohammed Sayed, a consumer of KSEB, and according to the petitioner, the said consumer interfered with the duties of the petitioner and challenging the authority of the petitioner and his members, the said consumer restrained the petitioner and others in his house and, subsequently, the petitioner and his associates were got released at the instance of the police attached to the Kodungalloor police station. But on the basis of the said incident, according to the petitioner, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and he had undergone such proceedings and, finally, penalty of non recordable warning was imposed, but the said punishment was set aside. Now the prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to constitute an external agency to investigate the conspiracy against the petitioner and punish the culprits accordingly. The second prayer is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first OP 22864/01 -:2:- respondent to pay compensation under public law a sum of Rs.5 lakhs for the persecutions, harassments mental torture suffered by the petitioner at the hands of the Government officials especially the 4th respondent and realize the amount from the assets of the officials who are responsible for such maltreatments towards this petitioner. The third prayer is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to launch prosecution against the 4th respondent and other culprit officers involved in the conspiracy against the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to paragraphs 10 and 12 of the writ petition in which serious allegations are raised in support the reliefs sought in the writ petition. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings as a result of high handed conspiracy, as some higher officials in the KSE Board could not tolerate the petitioner who conducted frequent inspection in the premises of consumers and detected several number of theft cases. By filing Exts.P9 and P10, the petitioner has also approached the Chairman of the Board seeking identical relief from him. But according to the petitioner, no action was taken based upon the said representations. As no action was taken, the petitioner preferred OP 22864/01 -:3:- the present writ petition by the month of July 2001 and the same has been pending consideration in this court. 3. I have heard Sri A.X.Varghese, the learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Standing counsel appearing for the KSE Board and also the learned Government Pleader. 4. The case of the petitioner as well as his counsel is that because of the reasons stated above, the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and as a result of the same, he had suffered mental agony. It is also pointed out certain facts in paragraph 10 and 12 of writ petition in support of his allegations with respect to the conspiracy etc. 5. It is true that the petitioner was initially subjected to disciplinary proceedings, and punishments were imposed and subsequently all those punishments were set aside and now only a minor punishment is imposed against him. According to the petitioner, the disciplinary proceedings and other departmental actions were taken as a result of conspiracy and, therefore, it should be inquired into by an external agency. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. {(2008) 2 SCC 409), this court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the OP 22864/01 -:4:- constitution of India cannot direct such investigation or proceedings since there are several remedies left open to the petitioner to redress his grievance, if so advised. Admittedly, Ext.P1 complaint was filed before the S.I. of Police Kodungalloor police station, in which the allegation was against Dr.Muhammed Syed whose house premises was inspected by the petitioner on 14.1.2000. Thus, it can be seen that the petitioner so far did not approach the police authorities with his present complaint. It is open for the petitioner to file a petition before the concerned police authorities or he can approach the competent Magistrate court setting forth his grievance and complaints. The second prayer is for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. The forum to seek such relief is the civil court and he can move such court in accordance with law and procedure. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. Kvm/-