IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19987 of 2009(P) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- P.DOLFUS(RETD.SUB ENGINEER), LIJODALE, CHEMMAKAD P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADVS. MR.VIJU THOMAS, SMT.M.MEENA JOHN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KOTTARAKARA. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY FOR KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY ADV.MR. K.S. ANIL, SC, KSEB R4 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 19987 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner who retired from service as Sub Engineer in the Kerala State Electricity Board sometime during 2007 has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P8 order dated 01.08.2005 passed by the Chairman of the Kerala Electricity Board upholding the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority directing recovery of 1/5 th of the sum of Rs.74,000/- being the loss sustained by the Board, besides imposing on him the punishment of barring one increment without cumulative effect for a period of six months. The order imposing punishment was passed by the disciplinary authority on 21-2-2004. The appeal filed before the Chief Engineer was partly allowed by order dated 24-1-2005. The review petition filed before the Board was rejected by the order impugned in this writ petition on 1-8-2005. This writ petition is filed on 6-7-2009. Four years have passed after the last of the impugned orders was passed. The petitioner has not however chosen to explain the long delay in challenging Ext.P8. I am therefore of the W.P.(C) No. 19987/09 2 considered opinion that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that short ground. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. mn.