IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 14471 of 2004(W)
1. SANTHAPPAN, S/O. ENASO NADAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL
4. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.SAJU.S.A
For Respondent :SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :05/10/2007
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No.14471 OF 2004
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 5th day of October 2007
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is at the instance of a Sub Engineer
who has been working in the Kerala State Electricity Board.
It is the admitted position that he has retired from service in
the year 2006. He impugns the order of punishment of
barring of one increment with cumulative effect apart from
recovery of Rs.7,500/- from him being the damages suffered
by the Board. The relevant facts which lead to the imposition
of punishment of the petitioner may be briefly noticed.
Petitioner had prepared an estimate for drawing a service line
to a consumer while he was working as Overseer in
Manjeshwar Electrical Section in the year 1999-2000.
According to the Board, petitioner had prepared the estimate
for the line as 180m of overhead line and 20m of weather
proof line. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the
above estimate prepared by him was approved and sanctioned
by the Assistant Engineer. Thereafter, the work was executed
and the line was drawn.
W.P.(C)No.14471 OF 2004
:: 2 ::
2. But later, on an inspection made by the authorities in
the Board, it was revealed that the length of the overhead was
210m and the weather proof line had a length of 3m. In other
words, there was an excess of 13m altogether. The loss
suffered by the Board was estimated to be Rs.7,500/-.
3. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the
petitioner. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was
not found to be satisfactory. An enquiry was instituted
against him. The enquiry officer found that the charge
levelled against the officer was proved. Therefore the
disciplinary authority, after accepting the finding, imposed
the penalty referred to above. Though the petitioner
challenged the above order before the appellate authority and
the Chairman of the Board, the two authorities concurrently
affirmed the finding entered by the disciplinary authority. It
is in the above circumstances, that the petitioner has
preferred this writ petition.
4. It is primarily contended by the petitioner that the
disciplinary proceedings are patently vitiated in as much as
W.P.(C)No.14471 OF 2004
:: 3 ::
the presenting officer in the enquiry was the same officer who
had sanctioned the work after approving the estimate
prepared by the petitioner. It is further contended by the
petitioner that the fact that the work was executed by another
employee of the board after obtaining sanction was ignored
by the authority concerned. Petitioner had nothing to do with
the execution of the work. He had only prepared the estimate
and submitted the same before the authority who had
subsequently sanctioned it.
5. Significantly, it is admitted by the respondent in the
counter affidavit that the presenting officer in the disciplinary
proceedings was infact the sanctioning officer himself. But
according to respondent it was the Assistant Engineer of the
section concerned, who was the custodian of the materials
required for executing the work and not the presenting
officer. In my view the above explanation is totally flimsy and
untenable.
6. Anyhow, the fact remains that the petitioner had
retired from service in the year 2006. Learned counsel
W.P.(C)No.14471 OF 2004
:: 4 ::
submits that the petitioner is prepared to pay the alleged loss
sustained by the Board. The limited plea is to delete the other
part of the punishment namely, barring of one increment with
cumulative effect.
7. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, I am satisfied
that the above plea is only just and reasonable, particularly
since there was violation of the rules of natural justice in as
much as the authority who had sanctioned the work had
himself acted as the presenting officer. Therefore, the Ext.P7
order is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall be
liable to remit the sum of Rs.7,500/- being the loss sustained
by the Board. The other part of the punishment imposed by
the Board i.e., barring of one increment with cumulative
effect is set aside.
Writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
(A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE)
jes
