T.R.Murukesan vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 5 November, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 14920 of 2009(H)


1. T.R.MURUKESAN, AGED 53 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
                       ...       Respondent

2. CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY

                For Petitioner  :SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI

                For Respondent  :SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :05/11/2009

 O R D E R
                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                    ================
                W.P.(C) NO. 14920 OF 2009 (H)
               =====================

         Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009

                        J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is a Deputy Chief Engineer under the respondent

Board.

2. He worked as Chairman of the Consumer Grievance

Redressal Forum, Norther Region during the period from

22/5/2008 to 22/9/08 on which date, by Ext.P6 order, he was

placed under suspension. That was challenged before this Court in

WP(C) No.28918/08. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P7

judgment directing the Board to consider whether the petitioner

could be posted in any capacity other than the Chair Person of the

CGRF. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated in service as

Deputy Chief Engineer.

3. In the meantime, Ext.P8 memo of charges was issued,

to which, petitioner submitted Ext.P9 reply. The proceedings

concluded by Ext.P10 order passed by the Chairman, the relevant

portion of which reads as under:

The undersigned has examined the contentions
made by Sri.T.R.Murukesan, Deputy Chief Engineer in
the written statement of defence as well as that during
the course of personal hearing, which was granted to
him on 21.01.2009, in detail, with reference to the

WPC 14920/09
:2 :

relevant records of the case. It is found that the entire
incident ought to have been handled in a more mature
manner by the delinquent officer. However no
deliberate misconduct inviting major punishment is
seen happened on the part of the delinquent regarding
the case. Therefore Sri.T.R.Murukesan, Deputy Chief
Engineer is cautioned to act with greater composure
while interacting with the members of the public and
further action against him in this regard is dropped.

The disciplinary action against Sri.T.R.Murukesan,
Deputy Chief Engineer, Office of the Chief Engineer
(Transmission North), Kozhikode (formerly Chairperson,
Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Kozhikode) is
finalized accordingly. The period spent by him under
suspension will be treated as eligible leave.

4. Petitioner challenged Ext.P10 by filing Ext.P11 appeal.

The appeal was rejected and the decision was communicated to

him by Ext.P12 order, which only said that the Board in its

meeting held on 28/4/2009 examined the appeal in detail with

reference to the connected file and relevant records of the case

and decided to uphold the orders passed by the Chairman and to

reject the appeal petition.

5. Invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act,

petitioner applied for the minutes of the Board meeting which

dealt with his appeal and accordingly, Ext.P13 minutes of the

meeting held on 28/4/2009 has been issued, which shows that

without any discussion on the merits of the contentions raised in

WPC 14920/09
:3 :

the appeal filed by the petitioner, it is recorded as “rejected”. It is

in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed.

6. Although the counsel for the petitioner has raised

several contentions against Ext.P10 order to the extent it orders

that the period the petitioner was kept under suspension will be

treated as eligible leave, having regard to the facts of this case, I

do not think it necessary for this Court to deal with those

contentions. This is for the reason that even on a plain reading,

Exts.P12 and P13 by which Ext.P11 appeal filed by the petitioner

was rejected, the order is unsustainable. The appellate authority

is not expected to rewrite a full judgment on the appeal in a case

where the appellate authority is endorsing views of the original

authority. But however, the proceedings of the appellate

authority should reflect application of mind to the contentions

raised in the appeal. In this case, both Exts.P12 and P13 show

that the contentions raised by the petitioner have not been

considered at all and there is total non application of mind. If that

be so, the appeal filed by the petitioner was not properly

considered and for that reason Ext.P12 deserves to be set aside.

7. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P12 and direct the 1st

WPC 14920/09
:4 :

respondent, the appellate authority, to reconsider Ext.P11 appeal

filed by the petitioner and pass fresh orders in the matter with

notice to the petitioner. This shall be done, as expeditiously as

possible, at any rate within 3 months of production of a copy of

this judgment.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp