Kerala High Court
T.R.Murukesan vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 20 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 30TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.7671 OF 2010(H)
PETITIONER:
T.R.MURUKESAN, AGED 54 YEARS,
S/O.P.RAGHAVAN, T C 42/1084, VALLAKADAVU,,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND WORKING AS DEPUTY CHIEF,
ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
(TRANSMISSION NORTH), KSEB, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADVS.
SMT. T.D.RAJALAKSHMI
SRI.R.SREEHARI
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695 004
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 CHAIRMAN KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY
BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTAM,,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R1 BY SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SC, KERALA STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMIT
R1 BY SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB
R1 BY SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 7671/10
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is stated to have
retired from the services of the Kerala State
Electricity Board (KSEB for short), as a
Deputy Chief Engineer, has approached this
Court impugning Ext.P10, as per which, even
though certain action proposed against him on
the allegations earlier made had been dropped
cautioning him 'to act with greater composure
while interacting with the members of the
public' (sic), the period during which he
spent under suspension has been treated only
as eligible leave.
2. The petitioner says that since
disciplinary action has been dropped by merely
'cautioning' him as mentioned above, the
relevant Regulations would not permit the KSEB
to treat the period which he spent under
suspension only as eligible leave. He,
therefore, prays that Ext.P10 be set aside and
WPC 7671/10
the respondents be directed to construe the
period in question as being duty. He also
prays that Ext.P14 order of the KSEB, which
has ratified Ext.P10 order, be quashed.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the
KSEB - Sri.M.K.Thankappan, on the other hand,
submitted that going by the records available
and the impugned order itself, the petitioner
was not exonerated from the charges; and that,
therefore, as per Rule 56B(7) Part I of the
Kerala Service Rules, the competent Authority,
being the Chairperson, is empowered to order
the period of suspension to be treated only as
eligible leave in such circumstances. He,
therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be
dismissed.
4. The afore narrative makes it clear
that the pertinent question in this case is
whether the petitioner had been exonerated
from all charges or whether he had been
WPC 7671/10
mulcted with any punishment, so as to warrant
his period of suspension to be treated as
eligible leave. As stated by
Sri.M.K.Thankappan, the KSEB is relying upon
Rule 56B(7), Part I of the KSR, to support
Exts.P10 and P14 orders, asserting that the
petitioner has not been exonerated, while the
disciplinary case against him was finalised.
However, going by the impugned order, it is
clear that the Chairman had found that the
incidents which led to the allegations against
the petitioner 'ought to have been handled in
a more matured manner by the delinquent
officer; and further that; 'However, no
deliberate misconduct inviting major
punishment is not seen happened on the part of
the delinquent regarding the case' (sic).
5. Obviously, since the Chairman himself
has held that there is no deliberate
misconduct on the part of the petitioner I
WPC 7671/10
cannot understand how, in spite of this
finding, he had gone ahead and invoked the
aforementioned Rule of the KSR in treating the
period of suspension spent by the petitioner
only as eligible leave.
6. I am, therefore, of the firm view that
this is a matter that requires reconsideration
at the hands of the KSEB and that this must be
done without any further delay, taking note of
the fact that this Writ Petition has been
pending before this Court for the last more
than ten years.
In the afore circumstances and for the
reasons above, I order this writ petition and
set aside Ext.P14; with a consequential
direction to the KSEB to reconsider the claim
of the petitioner as above, after affording
him an opportunity of being heard - either
physically or through videoconferencing -
carefully and adverting to my observations
WPC 7671/10
above, thus culminating in an appropriate
order thereon, as expeditiously as is
possible, but not later than two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
I make it clear that while the afore
exercise is completed, the KSEB will go
through the contents of Ext.P10 order very
closely and decide whether the provisions of
Rule 56B(7) of Part I of the KSR would be
attracted, particularly when the Chairperson,
who is the competent disciplinary Authority,
has already found that the petitioner cannot
be seen to have committed 'deliberate
misconduct inviting major punishment'.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
RR JUDGE
WPC 7671/10
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF BOARD ORDER (FX)
NO.2510/2007 (ESTT. III/4532/2006)
DATED 02/11/2007 OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT BOARD.
EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROMOTION ORDER NO.
DO(M) NO. 1036/2008 (ESTT.
III/4532/2006) DATED 25/04/2008
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF CERTIFICATE OF TRANSFER
OF CHARGE ISSUED BY THE CHIEF
ENGINEER, DISTRIBUTION NORTH, KSEB,
KOZHIKODE.
EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE SITTING REGISTER OF
CGRF, KOZHIKODE.
EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF PROGRESS REPORT OF CGRF
FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01/04/2008 TO
20/09/2008.
EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER
NO. ESTT. III/7046/2008 DATED
18/09/2008.
EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC
NO.28918/2008 DATED 02/12/2008 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOCOPY OF MEMORANDUM OF CHARGES
AND THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION LAID
AGAINST THE PETITIONER DATED
20/11/2008 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER TO THE CHARGE MEMO
AND STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION ON
24/12/2008.
WPC 7671/10
EXHIBIT P10 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.
ESTT.III/7045/2008 DATED 25/02/2009
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM
DATED 21/03/2009 FILED BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER BO(FB)
NO.1211/2009 (ESTT. III/7046/2008)
DATED 07/05/2009.
EXHIBIT P13 PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC
NO.14920/2009 DATED 05/11/2009 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P14 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER BO (FB)
NO.64/2010 (ESTT. III/7046/2008)
DATED 05/01/2010 PASSED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
