IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28184 of 2008(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- M. SHEREEF, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, 110 KV SUB STATION, K.S.E.B, PUNNAPRA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND SECRETARY, K.S.E.B, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, K.S.E.B, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR TRANSMISSION SECTION, PUNNAPRA, ALAPPUZHA. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.28184 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 20th October, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as an Assistant Engineer in the Kerala State Electricity Board. In this writ petition, he challenges Exts.P4, P5, P8 and P9 orders and prays for a declaration that he is not entitled to pay interest on the rent payable by him for occupying the quarters allotted to him and also on the house rent allowance which he has received. 2. While the petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer at Major Transmission Section, Punnapra, Quarter No.D3 was temporarily allotted to him initially for a period of one year. The petitioner continued to occupy the quarters from October 2001 to May 2006, without remitting the rent. However, notwithstanding the fact that he was in occupation of official quarters, he was also drawing house rent allowance. When this came to the notice of the authorities, the fourth respondent Executive Engineer, issued Ext.P2 notice calling upon the W.P.(C) No.28184/2008 2 petitioner to remit the sum of Rs.30,082/=, being the arrears of rent for the period from October 2001 to May 2006 and the excess house rent allowance drawn by the petitioner during the said period. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer, the third respondent herein. By Ext.P3 order, the third respondent rejected the appeal and directed the petitioner to remit the arrears immediately. When the petitioner did not pay the arrears, Ext.P4 notice was issued by the Executive Engineer demanding payment of the amounts mentioned therein. The petitioner thereupon moved the Chairman of the Board. The Chairman also rejected the appeal. Thereupon, the second respondent, the Inspector General of Police, Vigilance and Security, issued Ext.P5 notice demanding compliance with the orders passed by the Chairman, failing which the petitioner was informed that disciplinary action will be initiated against him. The petitioner thereupon moved the Kerala Lok Ayuktha. The respondents resisted the complaint filed by the petitioner before the Lok Ayuktha contending inter alia that the petitioner was the disbursing officer from October 2002 onwards W.P.(C) No.28184/2008 3 and that as the disbursing officer, he ought to have either paid the rent or stopped drawing house rent allowance. By Ext.P8 order passed on 3.3.2008, the Lok Ayuktha rejected the complaint filed by the petitioner. The operative portion of the order passed by the Lok Ayuktha reads as follows:- “Admittedly while the complainant was working as Assistant Engineer, Transmission Section, Punnapra, Quarter No.3 was alloted to the complainant and he was occupying the same. According to the 1st respondent he has not remitted the rent of the quarters occupied by him during the period from 10/01 to 5/06. It is also seen that while he was occupying the quarters he was also drawing HRA. In these circumstances the complainant cannot be heard to say that the action should taken against the 4th respondent for not remitting the amount recovered from his salary to the KSEB. According to the complainant the 2nd respondent was responsible for not recovering the amount and therefore the action should also be taken against him. The complainant who was occupying the quarters was fully aware that he was drawing HRA. Now he throws the entire blame on his superior officers for not having recovered the amount from his salary. The complainant knowing fully well that he was not entitled to get the HRA received the same. According to me the respondents should have initiated disciplinary action against the complainant. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. Hence the complaint is dismissed.” W.P.(C) No.28184/2008 4 3. Even thereafter, the petitioner did not remit the amount demanded from him. Thereupon, the third respondent issued Ext.P9 order dated 21.6.2006 directing a departmental enquiry into the charges against the petitioner and also appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry. Ext.P9 order is challenged in this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the entire amount payable by him including interest has been deducted from his salary and that what is claimed in the Writ Petition is only refund of the interest collected from him. The learned counsel further submitted that as the petitioner has complied with the demand made by the Board, the continuance of the disciplinary action initiated against him is not warranted. 5. A reading of Ext.P8 indicates that the Lok Ayuktha had while rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner observed that the case on hand is one where the Board should have initiated disciplinary action against the petitioner. Taking cue from the said direction, the third respondent has ordered an enquiry into the conduct of the petitioner and also appointed an W.P.(C) No.28184/2008 5 Enquiry Officer. In the light of the fact that the petitioner was the disbursing officer at least from October 2002 onwards, it cannot be said that the petitioner was unaware that he was drawing HRA while he was in occupation of official quarters. In my opinion, in the light of the findings in Ext.P8 order, the decision taken by the Board to conduct a departmental enquiry against the petitioner cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. The challenge made by the petitioner to the demand for and recovery of rent and interest from him and also the house rent allowance which he had illegally drawn is without any merit. The writ petition is, in my opinion, without any merit. It is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE nj.