IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930 OP.No. 33400 of 2000(A) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.RAJAN, ASST.ENGINEER (RETD.), “SOUPARNIKA', B.C.ROAD, NEAR COMMUNITY HALL, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.K.JAGADEESH SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, K.S.E.BOARD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.BOARD, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, FEROOKE. 4. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, K.S.E.BOARD, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN,SC,KSEB FOR RESPONDENTS THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KSS ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.57028/2000 IN O.P.NO.33400/2000 A CLOSED 7/11/2008 SD/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 22/07/2000. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 4/01/2000. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN O.S.NO.130/1997 DTD. 30/11/1998. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THIS PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 3/05/2004. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.FRI/DIS.CASE/FEROKE/2004/3634 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 4TH MAY, 2004. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE KSS S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.No.33400 OF 2000 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, after retirement, for recovery of loss caused to the Kerala State Electricity Board on account of negligence of the petitioner in his duties. The allegation was that while the petitioner was working as Sub - Engineer at 110 KV Sub Station, Chevayoor, Kozhikode, for the period from 9/90 to 11/96, he failed to take note of the multiplication factor of 5 applicable to the meter of a particular consumer for calculating the energy charges, as a result of which the board suffered a loss of Rs.3,14,514/-. The contention of the petitioner is that he was not working in that particular station for the entire period, but was working only from 12/90 to 5/96. He would further submit that against proceedings for recovery of the amount from the consumer, the consumer had filed O.S. No.130/1997 before Sub Court, Kozhikode, in which the demand against the consumer was set aside on the ground of limitation. According to the O.P.No.33400/2000 2 petitioner, that was because the Board did not contest the case properly. He points out that in the decision of Southern India Marine Products Co. V. K.S.E.B [1995(2) KLT 167], this Court has held that for recovery of electricity charges, the Limitation Act is not applicable. According to the petitioner, if the Board has brought this decision to the notice of the Court, the Board would not have suffered the loss which is sought to be recovered from the petitioner and therefore the petitioner cannot be made liable for the same. 2. With the help of a counter affidavit, the Board would dispute the contentions of the petitioner. According to them, it is not disputed that the multiplication factor was applicable and not taken into account for deciding the electricity charges due from the consumer. They would point out that the multiplication factor has been recorded in the billing calculation register, which ought to have been perused by the petitioner before meter readings were reckoned for the purpose of calculation of energy charges. It is pointed out that for the purpose of recovery from the petitioner only the period from 12/92 to 5/96 during which the petitioner was working in the Sub Station only was taken into account. According to them, O.P.No.33400/2000 3 by Ext.P5, only 40% of the loss has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner, that too subject to the decision of the appeal filed by the Board against the decree in the suit filed by the consumer, which appeal is stated to be pending as A.S.No.459/99 before this Court. 3. I have considered the contentions of the parties in this writ petition. 4. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the Board, the fact that the multiplication factor of the particular meter ought to have been but has not been taken into account for the purpose of calculating energy charges is not in dispute. In Ext.P5, which is the final order passed in the disciplinary proceedings for the purpose of recovery of loss from the petitioner, only the period from 12/92 to 5/96 has been taken into account. Further only 40% of the loss has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner which also has further been made subject to the result of this original petition. Although, the petitioner would raise a contention that it was because of the fault of his predecessor in office since the multiplication factor had not been mentioned in the billing calculation register, there is no averment to that effect in Ext.P4 reply O.P.No.33400/2000 4 filed by the petitioner. That being so, it is clear that the petitioner was negligent in his duties in so far as before calculating energy charges due from the consumer in question, the petitioner did not note the multiplication factor, which was recorded in the billing calculation register and apply the same for the purpose of billing the consumer. As such, clearly the petitioner was negligent in his duties. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the challenge against the impugned orders. Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. However, as stated in Ext.P5, I also make it clear that this would subject to the final decision in the A.S. and if ultimately, the appeal is decided in favour of the Board and the board is able to recover the money from the consumer, the amounts recovered from the petitioner would be refunded. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd O.P.No.33400/2000 5