IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 18TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 33795 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.P.KUTTYKRISHNAN, S/O.CHANDU VAIDYAR RETC.ASSISTANT ENGINEER NAVANEETHI KOLASSERRY , PO., KAVUMBHAGAM THALASSERRY, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY THE SECRETARY KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) KSEB, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,ELECTRICAL DIVISION THALASSERRY. 4. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KSEB, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE KANNUR. 5. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER KSEB, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE KANNUR. ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB FOR R1 TO 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/02/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 33794 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 33795/08. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DTD.29.8.03. P2. COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.11.9.03. P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.14.1.04. P4. COPY OF THE REPLY THROUGH R3. P5. COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT. P6. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.30.3.04. P7. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 27629/03. P8. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.17.3.08 TO R4. P9. COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD.16.4.04 TO R5. P10. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.5.10.04. P11. COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD.2.11.04. P12. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.31.10.06 OF R4. P13. COPY OF THE PETITION BEFORE R4. P14. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.8.4.08. P15. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.23.7.08 BEFORE R1. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).Nos.33794 & 33795 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 7th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners in these two writ petitions were employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board. Both of them retired on 31.5.2005. In respect of misconduct committed by the petitioners in the matter of taking metre reading of a consumer, which led to huge loss to the Electricity Board, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioners, which ended in imposition of the punishment of withholding of next two increments with cumulative effect on the petitioners. That punishment has become final. The loss caused to the Board on account of the misconduct committed by the petitioners was sought to be recovered from the petitioner from their DCRG. They also have not been paid monthly pension. They are being paid only provisional pension is the other grievance of the petitioners. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking the following reliefs: W.P.(C).No.33794/2008: “i) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay full pension and DCRG to the petitioner; ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to review the punishment awarded to the petitioner as per Ext.P2 and to recall the same; iii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to take a decision in Ext.P2 in the light of Ext.P4 and P8; w.p.c.33794/08 & cc 2 iv) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to implement Ext.P8 and to finalise the same within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.” W.P.(C).No.33795/2008: “i) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay full pension and DCRG to the petitioner; ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to review the punishment awarded to the petitioner as per Ext.P3 and to recall the same; iii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to take a decision in Ext.P15 representation in the light of Ext.P7 judgment and in the light of the provision for review as contained in Ext.P10.” 2. The primary contention of the petitioners is that the arrears of electricity charges caused on account of the error committed by the petitioners could and should have been recovered by the Board from the consumer in question and therefore, it cannot be said that the Board had suffered any loss in connection with the misconduct committed by the petitioners. They submit that the liability of the consumer to pay the amount has been confirmed by this Court by Ext.P4 judgment in W.P.(C).No. 27629/2003. Therefore, if at all there is any loss, it is because of inaction on the part of the Board in recovering the amounts from the consumer, is their contention. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board submits that the recovery of the arrears of electricity charges caused on account of the misconduct committed by the petitioners from the consumer was stayed by this Court in W.P.(C).No. 28751/2008. w.p.c.33794/08 & cc 3 Therefore, according to the counsel for the Board, unless and until the amount is actually recovered from the consumer in question, the petitioners cannot escape from the liability to make good the loss caused to the Board on account of their misconduct. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. W.P.(C).No.28751/2008, in which, this Court had stayed recovery of arrears of electricity charges from the consumer in question was dismissed by me today. Therefore, there is no impediment for the Board to recover that amount now. The petitioners' contention that notwithstanding whether the Board recovers the amounts from the consumer or not, it cannot be recovered from the petitioners does not find favour with me. But as and when the amounts are actually recovered from the consumer, the amounts withheld from their DCRG are liable to be disbursed to the petitioners. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: The monthly pension due to the petitioners shall be disbursed within a period of one month with arrears. As and when the arrears of electricity charges are recovered from the consumer in question, corresponding amount withheld from the DCRG of the petitioners shall be released to them. However, it would be open to the Board to recover monetary equivalent of the punishment of barring of increments of the petitioners, from the DCRG of the petitioners. It w.p.c.33794/08 & cc 4 would be open to the petitioners to approach the appropriate authority of the Board for review of the punishment, liberty for which is reserved for the petitioners in Ext.P2 in W.P.(C).No. 33794/2008. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge