IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2595 of 2007(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- T.SATHYANESAN, S/O. THOMPSON, 'ATHAM', KAKKAMOOLA, KALLIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA RESPONDENTS: -------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KASARGODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC2595/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.3.2003. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.11.2005. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.6.2006. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.8.2006. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.9.2006 GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE V.GIRI, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.2595 of 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to disburse the entire D.C.R.G. due to him after setting aside Ext.P5. Petitioner retired from service on 30.9.2001. While working as Junior Engineer, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and it ultimately resulted in Ext.P1 order by which there was a direction for recovery of an amount of Rs.43,500/- from the D.C.R.G. due to the petitioner. Ext.P1 was set aside under Ext.P2. But the view taken therein that Ext.P1 order of recovery was passed by an incompetent authority did not find favour with the Division Bench under Ext.P3. But liberty was granted to refix the amount after supplying the petitioner, the basis of fixing the liability. Petitioner sought for, the details. What is given is only Ext.P5. 2. I have perused Ext.P5. In my view, it is not explicit enough to give the petitioner an idea as to why the said amount mentioned therein is sought to be treated as liability. WPC2595/2007 2 In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to treat Ext.P5 as a show cause. Petitioner may file his objections thereto within a month from today. Any details sought for by the petitioner may be given. Final order may be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, JUDGE csl