IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 OP.No. 25755 of 2002(N) ----------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- PRASANNA KUMAR M.K., METER READER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, K.S.E.B., MULLERIA, KASARAGODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KASARAGODE. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1TOR4 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.NO.25755/2002 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE NO.GB1/DA/6/92-93/141 DTD. 15/1/93. EXT.P2 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD.1-2-93. EXT.P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT OF ENQUIRY DTD. 30/10/99 SUBMTTED BY SASEENDRAN M.T., ASST. EXE. ENGINEER, GENERAL CIRCLE, MOOLAMATTAM. EXT.P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.GB1/DA/6/92-93/332 DTD. 24/9/2001 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.EBVS/1/2/2002 DTD. 6/4/2002 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.BIV.5150/92 DTD. 5/8/02 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. --------------------------- O.P.NO.2575 OF 2002 ---------------------------- DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009 JUDGMENT The Electrical Major Section, Badiadka received a mass petition from some consumers on 14/8/2002 requesting to take disciplinary action against the petitioner, who while working as provisional meter reader entrusted the meter reading work to a private party by name Seetharama Bhatt. On the basis of the mass petition the K.S.E. Board appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire about the charges levelled against the incumbent. Before the Enquiry Officer the complainant was examined as PW-1 and another witness as PW-3. Both of them gave evidence before the Enquiry Officer stating that one Seetharama Bhatt took the meter reading on the premises as entrusted by the petitioner. 2. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit it is stated that on an inspection conducted by the Assistant Engineer of the concerned section office at the premises of Sri Thimmappayya, -2- O.P.No.25755/2002 meter tampering was detected and the consumer was imposed with a penal bill and that all the signatories of the mass petition are residents of the locality; but they are not related to Thimmappayya, the first signatory as alleged by the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no specific charges levelled against the petitioner. Relying on the decision reported in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Sharif ((1982) 2 SCC 376) the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that charge sheet served on the delinquent employee not indicating with sufficient particularity the date, time and location of the alleged incident which constituted the charge of misconduct, is untenable. On the basis of the said submission I have examined the charges levelled against the petitioner. 4. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the charges framed against the delinquent official are not specified. Therefore, the Supreme Court decision relied on by the -3- O.P.No.25755/2002 petitioner is applicable to this case. 5. The disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint filed by PW-1 and others. Though 12 persons are cited as witnesses, nobody was examined except two persons in support of the complaint. PW-1 is the complainant himself. The bona fides of the complaint is doubtful for the reason that in the charge memo it is stated that unauthorised meter reading was done in the year 1990, that there is no specific charge regarding the details of misconduct done which means the date of misconduct or the date on which the meter reading was done, reading taken from how many houses, who were present at the time of taking meter reading etc. Secondly, the complaint was filed in August, 1992 whereas the act alleged was occurred in 1990. The findings entered by the enquiry officer is only based on the complaint filed about two years later. If it is a bona fide complaint, definitely a complaint would have been lodged within a reasonable period. The -4- O.P.No.25755/2002 misconduct alleged is grave offence. I do not find any reason to agree with the finding of the authorities or the Enquiry Officer for the reasons stated above. In the result, Exts.P4, P5 and P6 orders are quashed. The respondents are directed to re-fix the pay, as if there is no order barring the increments. O.P. is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv. -5- O.P.No.25755/2002 HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. -------------------------- O.P.NO.25755 OF 2002 -------------------------- JUDGMENT 3rd February, 2009