IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 14920 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- T.R.MURUKESAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.P.RAGHAVAN, TC 42/1084, VALLAKKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM & WORKING AS DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, (TRANSMISSION NORTH), KSE BOARD, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB FOR R1-2 SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.14920/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: PHOTOCOPY OF THE BOARD ORDER (FX) NO.2510/2007 (ESTT.III/4532/2006) DT 2.11.2007 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BOARD. EXT.P2: PHOTOCOPY OF the PROMOTION ORDER NO.BO(M) NO.1036/2008(EST.III/4532/2006) DT 25.4.2008 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TRANSFER OF CHARGE ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER, DISTRIBUTION NORTH, KSEB,KOZHIKODE. EXT.P4: PHOTOCOPY OF THE SITTING REGISTER OF CGRF, KOZHIKODE. EXT.P5: PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROGRESS REPORT OF CGRF FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.2008 TO 20.9.2008. EXT.P6: PHOTOCOPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER NO.ESST.III/7046/2008 DT 18.9.2008. EXT.P7: PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.28918/2008 DT 2.12.2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P8: MEMORANDUM OF CHARGES AND THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION LAID AGAINST THE PETITIONER DATED 20.11.2008 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHARGE MEMO AND STATEMENTOF ALLEGATION ON 24.12.2008. EXT.P10: PHOTOCOPY OF the ORDER NO.ESST.III/7046/2008 DT.25.2.2009 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DT 21.3.2009 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER B.O.(FB) NO.1211/2009 (ESTT.III/7046/2008) DT. 7.5.2009 EXT.P13: PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DT. 25.8.2009 OF THE PRO OF THE 1ST RESPONDENTBOARD ENCLOSING MINUTES OF MEETING OF the FULL BOARD OF THE KSE BOARD HELD ON 28.4.2009. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 14920 OF 2009 (H) ===================== Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Deputy Chief Engineer under the respondent Board. 2. He worked as Chairman of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Norther Region during the period from 22/5/2008 to 22/9/08 on which date, by Ext.P6 order, he was placed under suspension. That was challenged before this Court in WP(C) No.28918/08. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment directing the Board to consider whether the petitioner could be posted in any capacity other than the Chair Person of the CGRF. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated in service as Deputy Chief Engineer. 3. In the meantime, Ext.P8 memo of charges was issued, to which, petitioner submitted Ext.P9 reply. The proceedings concluded by Ext.P10 order passed by the Chairman, the relevant portion of which reads as under: The undersigned has examined the contentions made by Sri.T.R.Murukesan, Deputy Chief Engineer in the written statement of defence as well as that during the course of personal hearing, which was granted to him on 21.01.2009, in detail, with reference to the WPC 14920/09 :2 : relevant records of the case. It is found that the entire incident ought to have been handled in a more mature manner by the delinquent officer. However no deliberate misconduct inviting major punishment is seen happened on the part of the delinquent regarding the case. Therefore Sri.T.R.Murukesan, Deputy Chief Engineer is cautioned to act with greater composure while interacting with the members of the public and further action against him in this regard is dropped. The disciplinary action against Sri.T.R.Murukesan, Deputy Chief Engineer, Office of the Chief Engineer (Transmission North), Kozhikode (formerly Chairperson, Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Kozhikode) is finalized accordingly. The period spent by him under suspension will be treated as eligible leave. 4. Petitioner challenged Ext.P10 by filing Ext.P11 appeal. The appeal was rejected and the decision was communicated to him by Ext.P12 order, which only said that the Board in its meeting held on 28/4/2009 examined the appeal in detail with reference to the connected file and relevant records of the case and decided to uphold the orders passed by the Chairman and to reject the appeal petition. 5. Invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act, petitioner applied for the minutes of the Board meeting which dealt with his appeal and accordingly, Ext.P13 minutes of the meeting held on 28/4/2009 has been issued, which shows that without any discussion on the merits of the contentions raised in WPC 14920/09 :3 : the appeal filed by the petitioner, it is recorded as “rejected”. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 6. Although the counsel for the petitioner has raised several contentions against Ext.P10 order to the extent it orders that the period the petitioner was kept under suspension will be treated as eligible leave, having regard to the facts of this case, I do not think it necessary for this Court to deal with those contentions. This is for the reason that even on a plain reading, Exts.P12 and P13 by which Ext.P11 appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected, the order is unsustainable. The appellate authority is not expected to rewrite a full judgment on the appeal in a case where the appellate authority is endorsing views of the original authority. But however, the proceedings of the appellate authority should reflect application of mind to the contentions raised in the appeal. In this case, both Exts.P12 and P13 show that the contentions raised by the petitioner have not been considered at all and there is total non application of mind. If that be so, the appeal filed by the petitioner was not properly considered and for that reason Ext.P12 deserves to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P12 and direct the 1st WPC 14920/09 :4 : respondent, the appellate authority, to reconsider Ext.P11 appeal filed by the petitioner and pass fresh orders in the matter with notice to the petitioner. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp