IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2010 / 13TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 3880 of 2006(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.SATHYANESAN, `ATHAM', KAKKAMOOLA, KALLIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KASARAGODE. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 3880/06. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.16.4.03. P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.27.11.2003. P4. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.26.11.08. P5. COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF DELEGATION OF POWERS OF KSEB. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.3880 of 2006 ================== Dated this the 5th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board, who retired from service as Junior Engineer on 30.9.2007. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. An enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted Ext.P1 enquiry report, in which, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. Based on the same, the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Kasargod, imposed on the petitioner the punishment of recovery of the loss caused to the Board on account of his misconduct, which was assessed at Rs.41,415/-, by Ext.P2 order dated 16.4.2003. The petitioner challenged the same in appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer who passed Ext.P3 order confirming the punishment. The Chairman of the Board also confirmed the same by Ext.P4 order. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P2, P3, and P4 orders as well as Ext.P5 Board order, whereby the Executive Engineer has been authrosied to function as the appointing authority of all categories of employees of and below the cadre of Sub Engineer and Senior Assistant within the division against the sanctioned post. 2. The primary contention raised by the petitioner is that the Executive Engineer could not have imposed the punishment on the w.p.c.3880/06 2 petitioner, since the petitioner's appointing authority is the Deputy Chief Engineer and the imposition of punishment is therefore without jurisdiction. In answer to the same, in the counter affidavit the respondents have specifically stated thus; “11) The contention of the petitioner based on order 31(g) of the standing orders are incorrect and baseless. There is no violation of the said order. As per the Delegation of Powers (Clause 1.1.6 of B.O.No.2627/97/TC2 (B) 1071/ dated 26/11/1997) the Executive Engineer can act as the appointing authority to all categories of employees of and below the rank of Sub Engineers. But, as per Article X, Clause 17(3) of Exhibit R3(a) Long Term Settlement, 1995 the Sub Engineers having 10 years of service were granted non-cadre designation as Junior Engineer and not cadre promotions. Moreover, the next cadre promotion from the Post of Sub Engineers is Assistant Engineer of which the appointing authority and disciplinary authority is the Deputy Chief Engineer. The post of Junior Engineer is therefore only a non-cadre designation and as such it remains well within the jurisdiction of Executive Engineer. Thus, Executive Engineer is the disciplinary authority to initiate disciplinary action against the Junior Engineer. The contention to the contrary is untenable.” 3. Insofar as the Board has powers to delegate functions of various authorities to authorised officers, I do not find any merit in the challenge against Ext.P5 Board order. In view of the said Board order and the averments in the counter affidavit, which have been quoted above, I do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that the Executive Engineer did not have jurisdiction to impose the punishment on the petitioner. Even otherwise, the Deputy Chief Engineer, who, according to the petitioner, is the appointing authority, has also confirmed the punishment by Ext.P3 order, which was in tune affirmed by the Kerala State Electricity Board also. 4. The punishment has been imposed after conducting an w.p.c.3880/06 3 enquiry, in which, the petitioner has been found guilty. I have gone through the enquiry report, which is Ext.P1. In the enquiry report, the enquiry officer has given elaborate reasons for finding the petitioner guilty of the misconducts charged against him. The same has been duly considered by the disciplinary authority while imposing on the petitioner the punishment of recovery of the loss caused to the Board. It is settled law that this Court cannot look into sufficiency of evidence in disciplinary proceedings if there is some evidence. Ext.P1 goes to show that there was ample evidence to find the petitioner guilty of the misconducts alleged against him. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge