IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 22864 of 2001(V)
1. LORANCE K.M.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.A.X.VARGHESE
For Respondent :SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :20/08/2009
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
----------------------------------------
O.P. No.22864 OF 2001
----------------------------------------
Dated, 20th day of August, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who was working as Assistant Executive
Engineer, KSEB, in the Anti Power theft squad at Ernakulam at
the relevant time, conducted inspection in the house of one Dr.
Mohammed Sayed, a consumer of KSEB, and according to the
petitioner, the said consumer interfered with the duties of the
petitioner and challenging the authority of the petitioner and his
members, the said consumer restrained the petitioner and others
in his house and, subsequently, the petitioner and his associates
were got released at the instance of the police attached to the
Kodungalloor police station. But on the basis of the said incident,
according to the petitioner, he was subjected to disciplinary
proceedings and he had undergone such proceedings and, finally,
penalty of non recordable warning was imposed, but the said
punishment was set aside. Now the prayer in the writ petition is
to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to
constitute an external agency to investigate the conspiracy
against the petitioner and punish the culprits accordingly. The
second prayer is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first
OP 22864/01
-:2:-
respondent to pay compensation under public law a sum of Rs.5
lakhs for the persecutions, harassments mental torture suffered by
the petitioner at the hands of the Government officials especially
the 4th respondent and realize the amount from the assets of the
officials who are responsible for such maltreatments towards this
petitioner. The third prayer is to issue a writ of mandamus
directing the first respondent to launch prosecution against the 4th
respondent and other culprit officers involved in the conspiracy
against the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention
to paragraphs 10 and 12 of the writ petition in which serious
allegations are raised in support the reliefs sought in the writ
petition. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was
subjected to disciplinary proceedings as a result of high handed
conspiracy, as some higher officials in the KSE Board could not
tolerate the petitioner who conducted frequent inspection in the
premises of consumers and detected several number of theft
cases. By filing Exts.P9 and P10, the petitioner has also approached
the Chairman of the Board seeking identical relief from him. But
according to the petitioner, no action was taken based upon the
said representations. As no action was taken, the petitioner preferred
OP 22864/01
-:3:-
the present writ petition by the month of July 2001 and the same
has been pending consideration in this court.
3. I have heard Sri A.X.Varghese, the learned counsel for the
petitioner; the learned Standing counsel appearing for the KSE
Board and also the learned Government Pleader.
4. The case of the petitioner as well as his counsel is that
because of the reasons stated above, the petitioner was subjected
to disciplinary proceedings and as a result of the same, he had
suffered mental agony. It is also pointed out certain facts in
paragraph 10 and 12 of writ petition in support of his allegations
with respect to the conspiracy etc.
5. It is true that the petitioner was initially subjected to
disciplinary proceedings, and punishments were imposed and
subsequently all those punishments were set aside and now only a
minor punishment is imposed against him. According to the
petitioner, the disciplinary proceedings and other departmental
actions were taken as a result of conspiracy and, therefore, it
should be inquired into by an external agency. In the light of the
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision in Sakiri Vasu v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. {(2008) 2 SCC 409), this court
while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
OP 22864/01
-:4:-
constitution of India cannot direct such investigation or proceedings
since there are several remedies left open to the petitioner to
redress his grievance, if so advised. Admittedly, Ext.P1 complaint
was filed before the S.I. of Police Kodungalloor police station, in
which the allegation was against Dr.Muhammed Syed whose
house premises was inspected by the petitioner on 14.1.2000.
Thus, it can be seen that the petitioner so far did not approach the
police authorities with his present complaint. It is open for the
petitioner to file a petition before the concerned police authorities or
he can approach the competent Magistrate court setting forth his
grievance and complaints. The second prayer is for compensation
of Rs.5 lakhs. The forum to seek such relief is the civil court and
he can move such court in accordance with law and procedure.
This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE.
Kvm/-