IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2011 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 27684 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.SUDHAKARAN NAIR, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. LATE KRISHNA PILLAI, SENIOR ASSISTANT, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, K.S.E.B., PUNALUR. (RESIDING AT 'GEETHAM', GOVINDAMANGALAM, KADAKKAL P.O., KOLLAM-691 536). BY ADV. MR. SANTHOSH MATHEW MR. SATHISH NINAN MR. ARUN THOMAS MR. JENNIS STEPHEN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER(HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT), K.S.E.BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, K.S.E.B., SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 304 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, K.S.E.B., PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT 670307 BY STANDING COUNSEL MR. K.S. ANIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(c). 27684 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DTD.16.3.2011 ISSUED AGAINST THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY TO THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 18.7.2011. EXT.P3 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DTD.18.7.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : PHOTOSTAT COPIES OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS SUBSTANDING THE FACT THAT SENDING OF EXHIBITS P2 AND P3. EXT.P5 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.EBVS.3/25/2005/867 DTD.6.9.2011 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER(H.R.M.), THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No . 27684 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 28th October, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner who joined in the service of Electricity Board as electricity worker was subsequently promoted to various posts and while working as senior assistant, he was served with a memo of charges dated 25.02.2005 in respect some delinquencies in his service. The petitioner submitted explanation dated 28.03.2005 and a domestic enquiry was also conducted. On receipt of the eqnuiry report, Ext. P1 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner asking to submit explanation, if any. The petitioner submitted Exts. P2 and P3 replies before the respondents, which were sent by a registered post, as revealed from Ext. P4 postal receipts issued in this regard. The case of the petitioner is that without any regard to the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents finalized the proceedings as per Ext. P5 order dated 06.09.2011, whereby the petitioner has been removed from the service, which turn is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Board submits, that the show-cause notice is dated 16.03.2011 and the petitioner had not submitted any explanation within time. Though time to submit the explanation was extended twice, since no explanation W.P. (C) No. 27684 of 2011 : 2 : was forthcoming from the part of the petitioner, the concerned file was caused to be forwarded to the second respondent and on the basis of available materials, the second respondent passed Ext. P5 order dated 06.05.2011. The learned standing counsel for the Board submits that Exts. P2 and P3 reply stated as preferred by the petitioner were not forming part of the of the records at the time of passing Ext. P5 order. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that, the second respondent cannot be blamed for not considering Exts. P2 and P3, since the said documents were not forming part of the records when Ext. P5 order was passed. However, taking note of the fact that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is a capital one, involving 'removal' from service and further since Exts. P2 and P3 were dated 18.07.2011, which were sent by registered post as revealed from Ext . P4, and that Ext. P5 impugned order was passed only on 06.09.2011, this Court finds it fit and proper to give an opportunity to the petitioner to prove his innocence, if he is innocent, more so, when no prejudice whatsoever will be caused to the respondents in this regard. 4. In the said circumstances, Ext.P5 order impugned in this Writ Petition is set aside. The second respondent is directed to reconsider the matter, taking note of Exts. P2 and P3 explanation preferred by the W.P. (C) No. 27684 of 2011 : 3 : petitioner and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate on or before 29.11.2011. The petitioner shall produce a copy this judgment along with copy of the Writ Petition before the second respondent for further steps. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd