IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20477 of 2009(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- KUNHIMOHAMMED.K., S/O.ABDULLA, AGED 53 YEARS, KAIPURATH HOUSE, RAMAPURAM P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 350. BY ADVS. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN, MR.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN. RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECTRICITY GENERAL), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. MR. K.S. ANIL, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 20477 of 2009 D =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 4th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Smt.Latha Prabhakaran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.S.Anil, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, a Sub Engineer in the Kerala State Electricity Board, was placed under suspension by Ext.P1 order dated 27-4-1989, pending disciplinary action. The petitioner was thereafter reinstated in service by Ext.P3 order dated 1-11-1990, without prejudice to the disciplinary action pending against him. It appears that in respect of the same subject matter, the petitioner was prosecuted for the offences punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sections 381 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. By Ext.P4 judgment delivered on 27-5-1993 the Court of the Special Judge, Kozhikode convicted him and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was acquitted of the offences punishable under W.P.(C) No. 20477/09 2 the Indian Penal Code. Pursuant to the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge, Kozhikode, the petitioner was removed from service by Ext.P5 order dated 7-11-1995 issued by the Chief Engineer. The petitioner challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence in Crl.A.No.383 of 1995 in this Court. The State of Kerala filed Crl.A.No.659 of 1995 challenging the judgment of acquittal in relation to the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The appeals were heard together by a learned Judge of this Court and by Ext.P7 judgment delivered on 9-1- 2004 this Court set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence and acquitted him of all the charges. The appeal filed by the State of Kerala was dismissed. Thereupon, the petitioner moved the respondents seeking reinstatement in service. The last of the representations was Ext.P11 dated 10-10-2008. On receipt of the said representation, the petitioner was called to appear for a hearing held on 11-12-2008 at Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner appeared and submitted Ext.P14 representation before the Chief Engineer. This writ petition was thereafter filed on 20-7-2009 contending that though he was acquitted of the charges in the year 2004, till date orders have not been passed reinstating him in service. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate him in service with all attendant benefits. W.P.(C) No. 20477/09 3 3. When this writ petition came up for admission on 22-7-2009, the learned standing counsel for the Board requested for time to get instructions. The case was accordingly posted on 3-8-2009. On 3-8-2009 the case was adjourned to this day. Today when the case was taken up for admission, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Board submitted that orders have been passed by the Chief Engineer on 6-7-2009 reinstating the petitioner in service, without prejudice to the disciplinary action pending against him and that he has also been directed to report for duty before the fourth respondent within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also made available to me a copy of the order dated 6-7-2009, which is incorporated in the records. The operative portion of the order dated 6-7-2009 reads as follows:- “Shri K.Kunhimohammed has submitted a representation dated 15-05-2008 seeking his readmission in service before the Chairman, K.S.E.Board and another one on 10-10-2008 before the Chief Engineer (H.R.M). He was given an opportunity to be heard in person. During personal haring he has stated that he is due to retire on 30-11-2010; so necessary steps might be taken to admit him in service. The undersigned after having considered all the factors decided to readmit Shri.K.Kunhimohammed in service without prejudice to the disciplinary action pending against him. He is posted at Electrical Circle, Manjeri and is directed to report for duty before the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical W.P.(C) No. 20477/09 4 Circle, Manjeri within 7 days on receipt of this order, failing which it will be presumed that he has abandoned the service of the K.S.E.Board and the case will be finalized accordingly. The period of suspension and the period between the removal and rejoining of duty will be regularized as and when the disciplinary action is finalized.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a copy of the order dated 6-7-2009 was delivered to the petitioner at his residence only on 27-7-2009 along with a copy of letter dated 24-7-2009 sent by the Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical Division, Manjeri and that the petitioner is presently in Saudi Arabia for Ummrah. She submits that the petitioner could not therefore report for duty within seven days and that having regard to the fact that notwithstanding the judgment of acquittal passed by this Court the Board took nearly five years to reinstate the petitioner in service, the petitioner may be granted a reasonable time to rejoin duty. 5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side. Though Ext.P7 judgment was delivered on 9-1-2004 acquitting the petitioner of all the charges, the Board took nearly five years to reinstate him in service. The petitioner received a copy of the order dated 6-7-2009 reinstating him in service only on 24-7-2009. He is presently away in Saudi Arabia for Ummrah. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that W.P.(C) No. 20477/09 5 he should be given a reasonable time to rejoin duty pursuant to the order dated 6-7-2009, instead of the period of seven days fixed thereunder. I accordingly direct the respondents to readmit the petitioner to duty pursuant to order dated 6-7-2009 issued by the Chief Engineer, if he reports for duty before the fourth respondent during office hours on 31-8-2009. The petitioner will be entitled to all benefits flowing from the order dated 6-7- 2009. Such reinstatement will however be subject to the orders to be passed in the disciplinary action which is stated to be pending against him. It is clarified that since the petitioner did not join duty within seven days, he will not be entitled to salary and allowances for the period from 3-8-2009 till 31- 8-2009. The said period shall be reckoned as joining time for rejoining duty pursuant to order dated 6-7-2009 and shall not be treated as break in service. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. mn.