IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 WA.No. 1245 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.18933/2006 Dated 30/03/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------ ANILKUMAR.K. S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, VILAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, KIZHUVILLOM.P.O., MAMOM, ATTINGAL, TRIVANDRUM, TERMINATED FROM SERVICE AS PER EXT.P9 ORDER DATED 17/07/2006 FROM THE POST OF ELECTRIC WORKER(MAZDOOR), OFFICE OF THE ASST. ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION,K.S.E.B.,VAKKOM, TVM. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, (URBAN) OFFICE OF THE DY.CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECGTRICITY BOARD, TVM. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ATTINGAL TRIVANDRUM. 5. THE ASST. ENGINER, ELECTRICAL SECTION KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAKKOM,TVM. SRI.ASHOK M. CHERIAN FOR R2 TO R5. GOVT.PLEADER, SMT.R.BINDU FOR R1. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. No.1245 OF 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. The Writ Petition was filed by him challenging Ext.P9 order passed by the 3rd respondent under Rule 10 (b) (iii) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rule, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'KS & SSR'). 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The appellant was advised for appointment to the post of Mazdoor under the Kerala State Electricity Board (for short 'KSEB') by the PSC on 1.1.2005. As required by the KSEB, he submitted Ext.P2 performa duly filled up, in which he admitted that he was convicted by a court of law. He has also stated that the conviction was by the IInd Additional Sessions Court, Trivandrum in CC.112/1989. As per the direction of the 3rd respondent contained in Ext.P3, he was admitted to duty pending police verification of the antecendents and character of the W.A.No.1245/2009 2 appellant. The 3rd respondent by Ext.P4 forwarded the details for verification to the Superintendent of Police, Trivandurm (Rural) District. The said communication also contained a direction to find out whether he is involved in any other case other than the one admitted by him in the performa. Later, the appellant was served with Ext.P7 show cause notice to show cause why a decision should not be taken that he is unsuitable for employment under the KSEB by reason of his earlier conviction by the Session's court. He submitted Ext.P8 reply. But, the 3rd respondent, even before the receipt of Ext.P8, passed Ext.P9 holding that because of the conviction, he is unsuitable for employment under the Board. Ext.P9 was challenged by the appellant before the learned Single Judge, mainly, on two grounds. The first ground was that even before receipt of Ext.P8 reply, which was submitted by him in time, the decision was taken. So, the decision is rendered in violation of principles of natural justice. Secondly, it is contended that going by Ext.P4, it would appear that 3rd respondent was only concerned whether the petitioner was involved in some other case other than the case in which he is convicted. In fact, he was not involved in any other case. So, he should have been retained in service. Regarding the conviction by the Session's court, he has W.A.No.1245/2009 3 truthfully given information in the performa and he has already suffered the imprisonment also and therefore, the same cannot be treated as a disqualification. 3. The learned Single Judge found that the appellant has not stated the prejudice caused to him by the non-consideration of Ext.P8 reply. Regarding the second point, the learned Single Judge found that the conviction by the Sessions Judge, even if, it is already suffered by the appellant, is a valid ground for denying employment under the KSEB. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant canvassed the aforementioned points before us also. We notice that the petitioner is being sent out as unsuitable for employment under the KSEB for the reason of his conviction in a criminal case. The petitioner does not have a case that he was not convicted or did not suffer imprisonment. So, we agree with the decision of the learned Single Judge and no prejudice has been caused to the appellant by reason of non-consideration of Ext.P8, even assuming it was submitted in time. W.A.No.1245/2009 4 5. On the second point, we fully agree with the reasons and conclusions of the learned Single Judge. A person convicted for the offence under Section 304 B of the IPC and underwent imprisonment for 5 years has been held to be unsuitable for employment under the KSEB. We think the said decision cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. It is a decision in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 10(b) (iii) of Part II KS & SSR. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps