IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16234 of 2004(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- T.A.SURENDRAN, THYPLAVILA VADAKETHIL, KUDAMUKKU, MAMMOODU P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, KAIPATTOOR. BY ADV. MR.G.UNNIKRISHNON. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -4. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY CIRCLE, KARALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA. R1 TO R3 BY MR.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC,KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.16234/2004-G: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DT. 19/03/99 ISSUED BY EXE.ENGINEER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF DEFENCE OF THE PETITIONER DT. 24/03/97. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DT. NIL. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT. 17/06/02 ISSUED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPLY DT. 22/07/02 FILED BEFORE THE R.3. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT. 11/09/02 OF THE R.3. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMO DT. 16/10/02 FILED BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 28/05/03 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 03/03/04 OF THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.16234 OF 2004 ------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner was working as a Sub Engineer in the service of the respondent Board. On certain allegations of misconduct he was placed under suspension from 30.1.1997. Ext.P1 memo of charges was issued to which the petitioner filed Ext.P2 statement of defence. While so, the suspension was revoked and he was reinstated in service with effect from 28.4.1997 without prejudice to the continuance of disciplinary proceedings. 2. It is stated that one Sri. C. Ramachandran Nair, Assistant Executive Engineer of the Board was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Accordingly, an enquiry was conducted and finally Ext.P3 report of enquiry was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. In Ext.P3 the petitioner was exonerated of all the 3 charges levelled against him WP(c).No.16234/04 2 in Ext.P1. In the meanwhile the Enquiry Officer was promoted and posted in the office of the Disciplinary Authority and as a result of this he made over the files to the 3rd respondent for taking further proceedings in the matter. 3. The 3rd respondent thereafter issued Ext.P4, where he says that the report of the enquiry officer was totally unsustainable and that another enquiry should be conducted. Proceeding further, he held that, in order to avoid delay in the matter, he was constrained to go to the file in detail and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of charges and deserved to be punished. On this basis, he proposed that one increment of the petitioner be barred with cumulative effect and called upon the petitioner to show his cause against the proposed punishment being awarded. To this proposal the petitioner filed Ext.P5 objection and sought an opportunity of hearing also. However, without hearing him Ext.P6 order was passed by the 3rd respondent, confirming the punishment proposed in WP(c).No.16234/04 3 Ext.P4. Petitioner filed Ext.P7 appeal before the 2nd respondent and that was rejected as per Ext.P8. Review was filed before the first respondent and that was disposed of by Ext.P9, confirming Ext.P6 order barring increment with cumulative effect and ordered that the period spent by the petitioner under suspension will be treated as eligible leave. It is challenging the imposition of punishment of bar of increment for one year with cumulative effect that this writ petition is filed. 4. In my view, the whole procedure adopted by the 3rd respondent is illegal. It is true that the disciplinary authority is entitled to disagree with the finding in the report of the enquiry officer. However, such disagreement can only be after issuing a show casue notice giving tentative reasons for the proposed disagreement. Thus the disciplinary authority is bound to give show cause notice to the delinquent and necessary after hearing the delinquent. While the procedure should be as above, what the 3rd respondent has done in this case is very strange ad is WP(c).No.16234/04 4 unsustainable. 5. A reading of Ext.P4 shows that the 3rd respondent was satisfied that yet another enquiry was the proper course. But, according to him such a fresh enquiry would cause further delay in the matter and for that reason he went through the files and found the petitioner guilty and decided the punishment in Ext.P4 show cause notice and confirmed that punishment. This is clearly erroneous and for that reason the action of the 3rd respondent imposing punishment by Ext.P6 has to be declared as illegal an I do so. Consequently Ext.P8 order rejecting the appeal and Ext.P9 order confirming Ext.P6 order to the extent increment is barred are also declared as void. For the aforesaid reasons Exts.P6, P8 and P9 will stand set aside. Writ Petition is allowed as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.16234/04 5