IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 25755 of 2002(N)
1. PRASANNA KUMAR M.K., METER READER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY
3. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE
4. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.PAREETH
For Respondent :SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :03/02/2009
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.
---------------------------
O.P.NO.2575 OF 2002
----------------------------
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009
JUDGMENT
The Electrical Major Section, Badiadka received a mass
petition from some consumers on 14/8/2002 requesting to take
disciplinary action against the petitioner, who while working as
provisional meter reader entrusted the meter reading work to a
private party by name Seetharama Bhatt. On the basis of the mass
petition the K.S.E. Board appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire
about the charges levelled against the incumbent. Before the
Enquiry Officer the complainant was examined as PW-1 and
another witness as PW-3. Both of them gave evidence before the
Enquiry Officer stating that one Seetharama Bhatt took the meter
reading on the premises as entrusted by the petitioner.
2. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit it is stated that
on an inspection conducted by the Assistant Engineer of the
concerned section office at the premises of Sri Thimmappayya,
-2-
O.P.No.25755/2002
meter tampering was detected and the consumer was imposed
with a penal bill and that all the signatories of the mass petition
are residents of the locality; but they are not related to
Thimmappayya, the first signatory as alleged by the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
there is no specific charges levelled against the petitioner.
Relying on the decision reported in State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Mohd. Sharif ((1982) 2 SCC 376) the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that charge sheet served on the delinquent
employee not indicating with sufficient particularity the date,
time and location of the alleged incident which constituted the
charge of misconduct, is untenable. On the basis of the said
submission I have examined the charges levelled against the
petitioner.
4. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit it is stated that
the charges framed against the delinquent official are not
specified. Therefore, the Supreme Court decision relied on by the
-3-
O.P.No.25755/2002
petitioner is applicable to this case.
5. The disciplinary action was initiated against the
petitioner on the basis of a complaint filed by PW-1 and others.
Though 12 persons are cited as witnesses, nobody was examined
except two persons in support of the complaint. PW-1 is the
complainant himself. The bona fides of the complaint is doubtful
for the reason that in the charge memo it is stated that
unauthorised meter reading was done in the year 1990, that there
is no specific charge regarding the details of misconduct done
which means the date of misconduct or the date on which the
meter reading was done, reading taken from how many houses,
who were present at the time of taking meter reading etc.
Secondly, the complaint was filed in August, 1992 whereas the
act alleged was occurred in 1990. The findings entered by the
enquiry officer is only based on the complaint filed about two
years later. If it is a bona fide complaint, definitely a complaint
would have been lodged within a reasonable period. The
-4-
O.P.No.25755/2002
misconduct alleged is grave offence. I do not find any reason to
agree with the finding of the authorities or the Enquiry Officer
for the reasons stated above.
In the result, Exts.P4, P5 and P6 orders are quashed. The
respondents are directed to re-fix the pay, as if there is no order
barring the increments.
O.P. is disposed of as above.
HARUN-UL-RASHID,
Judge.
kcv.
-5-
O.P.No.25755/2002
HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.
————————–
O.P.NO.25755 OF 2002
————————–
JUDGMENT
3rd February, 2009