Sathyan A vs The Assistant Executive Engineer
2021 Latest Caselaw 2561 Ker

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                     PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

              FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 2ND MAGHA, 1942

                            WP(C).No.4272 OF 2016(H)


PETITIONER:

                  SATHYAN A.
                  AGED 47 YEARS
                  S/O.SEKHARAN NAIR, LINEMAN, ADUKKATH HOUSE, CHEVAYUR.P.O.,
                  KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

                  BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS

RESPONDENTS:

       1          THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
                  ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KOZHIKODE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY
                  BOARD LTD., GANDHI ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001.

       2          THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
                  ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KOZHIKODE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY
                  BOARD LTD., GANDHI ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001.

       3          THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
                  ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.,
                  KOZHIKODE-673 001.

       4          THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
                  REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,
                  THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.


OTHER PRESENT:

                  SMT. ANEETHA A.G. - SC

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.01.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.4272 OF 2016(H)

                                 2




                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be working as a Lineman in

the services of the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB for

short) and is impugning the orders issued, consequent to a

disciplinary action against him, by the competent Authorities

in the hierarchy of the Board, namely Exts.P6, P8 and P10.

2. The petitioner urges that Ext.P10 order, which is

the final one issued by the Board, is incorrect and

unsustainable since the presenting officer has failed to

submit any evidence or documents against him and that the

enquiry officer had not appreciated the evidence in its proper

perspective. He alleges that the enquiry officer has violated

the principles of natural justice and that the enquiry report is

a non speaking one, with the said officer acting in a

mechanical fashion.

3. The petitioner submits that even though it has been

alleged against him that he had entered into verbal and

physical altercation with a certain Sri.Reghunathan on WP(C).No.4272 OF 2016(H)

04.10.2013, he was, in fact, admitted to the hospital on that

day and discharged only on 08.10.2013 and that the

testimony of the witness in the enquiry, that he had

threatened Sri.Reghunathan at 10.30 a.m on that day, is

contradictory to the charges against him, that he had done so

at 7.30 a.m. He further alleges that Sri.Reghunathan was

not in good terms with him and that he had agreed to settle

the matter at the Vellayil Police Station but still proceeded to

file a complaint. He contends that Ext.P10 order has been

passed by the 4th respondent - KSEB without considering any

of the grounds urged by him in his Ext.P9 memorandum of

appeal, nor had he been given an opportunity of being heard.

4. In response, the learned Standing Counsel for the

KSEB - Smt.Aneetha, submitted that this writ petition

contains non specific allegations and that the petitioner has

only stated in an omnibus manner, that the impugned orders

are bad and unsustainable. She submitted that none of the

grounds urged in this writ petition or in his appeal preferred

before the competent Authorities, disclose why the WP(C).No.4272 OF 2016(H)

allegations against him are not properly proved or that he is

not deserving of the punishment of withholding of one

increment without cumulative effect. She therefore, prayed

that this writ petition be dismissed.

5. I have examined the materials available on record

and have also gone through the orders produced by the

petitioner.

6. I notice that the petitioner has chosen not to

produce the enquiry report but still says that the enquiry

officer has acted in a mechanical fashion and that the said

order is not a speaking one. However, in the absence of the

same being on record, I cannot find any credence to this.

7. That said, when one examines the impugned

orders, it is clear that witnesses are stated to have deposed

against the petitioner during enquiry and the Authorities

have found the testimony of a witness in the rank of an

Assistant Engineer - that he saw the petitioner challenging

Sri.Reghunathan at 10.30 a.m - to be unimpeached. Though

the petitioner says that other witnesses have spoken against WP(C).No.4272 OF 2016(H)

the allegations, it is also recorded in the impugned orders

that he has admitted that the incident took place at 7.30 a.m

in the office of Sri.Reghunathan and that he had explained

this saying that they were not in good terms.

8. That apart, going by the pleadings on record, the

petitioner says that there were certain conciliatory talks

between him and Sri.Reghunathan even in the presence of

certain police officials and that the latter had agreed to

settle the matter but then went ahead and filed a complaint.

9. When I say as afore, I am cognizant of the fact that

the petitioner has, pending this writ petition, produced

Ext.P11 accident-cum-wound certificate obtained from the

Government General Hospial, Kozhikode, in which, he is

recorded to have suffered certain injuries and that this was

caused on account of an alleged assault against him at 7.45

a.m., on 04.10.2013 at Gandhi Road by a "known person".

The Certificate also says that the afore are recorded based

on the petitioner's account that he was slapped in the face

and thigh and was hit on the chest and back.

WP(C).No.4272 OF 2016(H)

10. However, what is relevant in this case is not that

Ext.P11 has been produced before this Court now, but

whether it had been produced before the enquiry officer.

11. Even though Ext.P1 is dated 04.10.2013, no

cogent reason has been given by the petitioner as to why this

was not produced during the enquiry or marked in evidence,

though the petitioner says in the writ petition that this has

been marked as Ext.W1.

12. However, as I have already said above, since the

enquiry report has not been produced on record, this Court is

not in a position to verify this and therefore, it can only be

presumed that the petitioner did not rely upon this document

during the enquiry proceedings.

13. That being said, it is also relevant to note from

Ext.P11 that it was at his insistance that he was admitted

and the doctor did so, which fact is clear from the record on

the certificate that the petitioner was 'insisting on

admission'.(sic) WP(C).No.4272 OF 2016(H)

14. I cannot, therefore, hold any credence to this

document in substantiation of the petitioner's plea that it was

he who was attacked by Sri.Reghunathan and not vice versa.

15. This is more so because, there is absolutely no

evidence on record, even as per the petitioner, to show that

Sri.Reghunathan had attacked him but the allegation was

specifically that at 7.30 a.m. it was the petitioner who had

attacked the former, which fact is stated in the impugned

orders to have been conceded by him during the enquiry

process.

16. While dealing with disciplinary action, it has always

been well settled that the Courts cannot sit as an appellate

forum over the orders of the competent disciplinary and

appellate Authorities; and that the power of judicial review is

limited to verify whether the action against the delinquent is

perverse or unconscionable.

17. In the case at hand, the petitioner has been found

guilty of having assaulted a co-worker, both verbally and

physically; and he has only been handed out a punishment of WP(C).No.4272 OF 2016(H)

withholding of one increment without cumulative effect.

18. The punishment is not a very major one and going

by the allegations proved against the petitioner, I cannot find

it to be unconscionable either.

In the afore circumstances, I find no reason to interfere

in this matter as has been prayed for by the petitioner and

therefore, dismiss this writ petition without any further

orders.

SD/-

                                       DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

rp                                              JUDGE
 WP(C).No.4272 OF 2016(H)






                                   APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1                 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 04.10.2013.

EXHIBIT P2                 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED
                           13.11.2013.

EXHIBIT P3                 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 29.11.2013.

EXHIBIT P4                 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.12.2013.

EXHIBIT P5                 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED
                           19.4.2014.

EXHIBIT P6                 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2014.

EXHIBIT P7                 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 30.10.2014.

EXHIBIT P8                 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.03.2015.

EXHIBIT P9                 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED
                           13.07.2015.

EXHIBIT P10                TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.08.2015.

EXHIBIT P11                TRUE COPY OF THEWOUND CERTIFICATE DATED 4.10.2013