IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7130 of 2005(W)
1. V. SURESHLAL, LINEMAN GRADE-I,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DY.CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) KERALA
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
4. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
For Respondent :.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :24/09/2010
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.7130 OF 2005
-------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is Lineman Gr.I in the services of the Kerala
State Electricity Bord. While he was working as Electricity
Worker, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by
issuing Ext.P1 charge memo. The petitioner denied the charges.
An enquiry was conducted. By Ext.P3 enquiry report, the enquiry
officer found the petitioner guilty of one charge out of three
charges. By Ext.P4 show cause notice, the disciplinary authority
found the petitioner guilty of the third charge also without going
the petitioner any notice to show cause why the disciplinary
authority should not differ from the findings of the enquiry officer
on charge 3 with reasons in support thereof and directed him to
show cause why the punishment of barring of three increments
with cumulative effect should not be imposed on him. Despite
Ext.P5 reply filed by the petitioner, by Ext.P6 order, that
punishment was confirmed. The petitioner filed Ext.P7 appeal
W.P.(c)No.7130/05 2
before the appellate authority along with Ext.P7(a) petition to
condone the delay. That was rejected by Ext.P8 order on the
ground that the appeal filed, does not conform to regulations
28 and 38 of Kerala State Electricity Board Employees’ CCA
Regulations. The petitioner is challenging EXts.P1, P6 and P8
in this writ petition.
2. The petitioner raises several contentions. First is
that the enquiry is vitiated for violation of principles of natural
justice. According to him, the petitioner had sought
production of certain documents, which was refused to be
produced on the ground that they were lost. Secondly, the
petitioner wanted the Board to produce certain witnesses who
are the employees of the Board, which was not considered. A
further contention of the petitioner is that the enquriy officer
found the petitioner guilty of only one charge, whereas the
disciplinary authority has, without any notice to the petitioner
regarding disagreement with the conclusions of the enquiry
officer, straight away found the petitioner guilty of another
misconduct also, which is against settled legal position. The
petitioner would further contend that in any event, the
petitioner was not guilty of the misconduct found proved by
W.P.(c)No.7130/05 3
the enquiry officer also.
3. No counter affidavit has been filed by the
respondents. But the learned Standing Counsel for the
Electricity Board seeks to justify the impugned orders on the
basis of the documents on record.
4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
There is substance in the contention of the petitioner that in
view of the regulations applicable, which stipulate that when
witnesses, who are the employees of the Board are cited, the
Board shall cause to produce the same. So also there is
merit in the contention of the petitioner that the enquiry is
vitiated for non-production of the documents called for. But in
view of the fact that I am satisfied that the petitioner is not
guilty of any misconduct, I am not going into these contentions
in detail.
5. By Ext.P1 charge memo, the petitioner was charged
with three misconducts which are:
(1) the petitioner while working at Nellila
Station as Electricity Worker refused to take cut off
readings in connection with introduction of spot billing
system.
W.P.(c)No.7130/05 4
(2) the petitioner marked attendance without
doing the assigned job.
(3) the petitioner betrayed the Brand by giving
false information that the delinquent is unable to do the
duty of a workman being medically fit.
The enquiry officer has found the petitioner not guilty of
charge numbers 2 and 3. As far as the first charge is
concerned, it is not in dispute before me that the duty which
the petitioner refused to do was taking meter reading for the
purpose of spot billing. Evidently, that is the duty of the Meter
Readers. The contention of the respondents is that since the
Meter Readers were in short supply, the Electricity Workers
were directed to do the work. But it is more or less clear that
the same was not part of the duties of an Electricity worker.
This is clear from the fact that about a week after initiating the
disciplinary proceedings, the Board issued a Circular to the
effect that only willing Electricity Workers shall be compelled to
do the work of meter reading. This would go to show that the
meter reading was not part of the duties of the Electricity
Worker. If that is not part of the duties of the Electricity
Worker, the petitioner could not have been compelled to do
W.P.(c)No.7130/05 5
the work of meter reading and he cannot be proceeded against
for not doing that work, in so far as he is expected to do only
the work of Electricity Worker. Therefore, the finding of the
enquiry officer that the petitioner is guilty of the first charge is
patently perverse and on that ground the enquiry itself is
vitiated.
6. As far as the other charges are concerned, when the
enquiry officer himself found the petitioner not guilty of those
charges, the disciplinary authority could not have without
following the procedure prescribed like giving notice for
disagreement to the petitioner with reasons for disagreement
and hearing him, found the petitioner guilty of the other
misconducts. Therefore, the finding of the disciplinary
authority that the petitioner is guilty of the third charge also is
clearly unsustainable. Even otherwise the enquiry officer has
given very cogent reasons for finding the petitioner not guilty
of that charge. Even in his order, the disciplinary authority
has not stated as to on what basis he found the petitioner
guilty of that misconduct. From the above discussion, it is
clear that the petitioner could not have been found guilty of
any misconduct as per the charge sheet. Consequently, the
W.P.(c)No.7130/05 6
impugned orders are unsustainable. Accordingly, they are
quashed.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
acd
W.P.(c)No.7130/05 7