IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1625 of 2008()
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
... Petitioner
Vs
1. AYYAPPAN ADICHAN, 57 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :07/08/2008
O R D E R
WA 1625/08 1
J.B. KOSHY & K.P. BALACHANDRAN, JJ.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Writ Appeal No 1625 of 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th August 2008
JUDGMENT
Koshy, J.
Writ petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Tribe community,
was engaged as CLR worker in the Electricity Board. He was
regularised as an electricity worker with effect from 01.02.1971.
While continuing in service, on the basis of a complaint he was
served with Ext P1 memo of charges stating that he secured
employment in the K.S.E. Board impersonating his uncle and it was
his uncle who was entitled to be engaged as CLR worker on the
basis of the earlier services. Writ petitioner submitted his objections
and departmental enquiry was conducted. Enquiry Officer found that
that impersonation was not established and misconduct was not
proved. Accordingly further disciplinary proceedings were dropped.
Writ petitioner retired from service on 31.10.2003, but just before his
retirement a show cause notice was issued by the Chief Engineer for
reopening the findings of the enquiry officer and reconsidering the
punishment and finally Chairman passed an order removing him from
WA 1625/08 2
service so that he can be denied of all the retirement benefits. Writ
petitioner approached this court contending that the Chairman has no
power to interfere with the disciplinary action already taken and
concluded. The power of review vests only with the Board. A
Division Bench of this court accepted the above contention and set
aside the action taken against him. Thereafter the Board passed the
impugned order. The Board can review the order only after
compliance with the procedure and in this case no such procedure
was complied with. The original complainant also died. Writ
petitioner had worked till his date of superannuation and he had
retired from service. In these circumstances, without complying with
the procedure Ext P9 without any valid order passed by the Board
was quashed by the learned single judge. We fully agree with the
reasoning of the learned single judge and the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
J.B.KOSHY
Judge
Sd/-
K.P. BALACHANDRAN
Judge
07/08/2008
en
[true copy]