IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16017 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ N.K.SURESH KUMAR, SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PARIPPALLY, RESIDING AT NEDIAZHIGAM, THEKKUMKARA, PULLICHARA P.O.,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA ELECTRICITY BOARD VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER KSEB, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER., ELECTRICAL DIVISION CHATHANNOOR ,KOLLAM. BY SC SRI.K.S.ANIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).16017/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner, who is working as Sub Engineer in the Electricity Board, challenges Ext.P6 order by which the Chief Engineer has decided to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner, on the memo of charges issued under Ext.P4. The memo of charges essentially is to the effect that the petitioner, while exercising powers under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, in his capacity as Assistant Engineer and Assessing Officer of Electrical Section, Mayyanad, had committed an illegality in cancelling a penal bill issued to one J.S.Desmond. Apparently, the bill for penal charges was issued pursuant to a detection of theft of energy. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had been exercising quasi judicial functions while he decided the objections filed by the consumer against the penal bill as such and therefore, that by itself should not have resulted in disciplinary action. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Section 168 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and submits W.P.(C).16017/2008 2 that action taken by him in good faith is otherwise protected under the Act. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Bechu Kurian Thomas and the learned Standing Counsel for the Board. 3. In the facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate that the Board itself takes a decision whether the disciplinary action should be taken against the petitioner on the allegations contained in Ext.P3. Since Ext.P6 has now been issued pursuant to a direction issued by the Member (Distribution), it will be appropriate that the Board which decides the issue as aforementioned, may not include the Member (Distribution). 4. In the result, writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:- W.P.(C).16017/2008 3 5. Petitioner may file a representation in the form of an appeal against Ext.P6 before the first respondent, Electricity Board, within a period of one month from today. There upon, Board shall take a decision as to whether disciplinary proceedings should be initiated against the petitioner on the allegations contained in Ext.P3, within a period of two months thereafter. Enquiry as contemplated by Ext.P6 shall be proceeded with only thereafter. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs