IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 33400 of 2000(A)
1. P.RAJAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.S.E BOARD
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
For Respondent :SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :07/11/2008
O R D E R
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