Mohammed Abdul Salam Ovungal vs The Kerala State Electricity ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 14471 Ker

WP(C) NO. 13837 OF 2021              1


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
     TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 13837 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          MOHAMMED ABDUL SALAM OVUNGAL
          AGED 48 YEARS, S/O ABDUL RAHIMAN.O (LATE), SENIOR
          ASSISTANT (EMP. CODE 1048586) O/O THE REGIONAL
          AUDIT OFFICER ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KERALA STATE
          ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED MANJERI, RESIDING OVUNGAL
          HOUSE, KIZHAKKETHALA MANJERI COLLEGE P.O, MANJERI,
          MALAPPURAM DIST-676 122

        BY ADV P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL



RESPONDENTS:

1       THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD
        REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM,
        PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004

2       THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM)
        KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD (KSEBL),
        VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004

3       THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY
        BOARD LTD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, MANJERI,
        MALAPPURAM DIST-676 121

4       THE REGIONAL AUDIT OFFICER,
        O/O THE REGIONAL AUDIT OFFICER,
        VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, MANJERI-676 121


    SRI. M.K. THANKAPPAN-S.C


        THIS     WRIT   PETITION     (CIVIL)    HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION       ON   13.07.2021,     THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 13837 OF 2021                   2


                                    JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

i. Call for the records leading to Exhibit P1 & P2 and quash the same by issuance of writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ.

ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding 2nd respondent to furnish the copy of inquiry report and documents referred to in Exhibit P1 and P2 to the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner while working as Senior

Assistant in the Regional Audit Office, Electrical Circle, Manjeri,

was placed under suspension by Ext.P1 order. Ext.P1 as well as the

memo of charges refers to a vigilance enquiry report dated

01.12.2020. The petitioner is required to submit his explanation to

the memo of charges. However, the learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the copy of the materials relied on by the

respondents had not been granted to the petitioner. Petitioner sought

copies of the vigilance enquiry report and the other materials which

had been relied on. By Ext.P4 dated 17.02.2021, the petitioner was

permitted to peruse the records and take down the required extracts

in the presence of the Senior Superintendent of the EB Vigilance

Section on any working day which shall be fixed in advance. It is

clear from the contentions raised that the petitioner did not approach

the respondents. It is submitted that he had sought further time to

submit his reply, which was rejected by Ext.P6. The petitioner

submitted Ext.P7 explanation to the memo of charges reserving his

rights to submit a further reply on the materials being made

available. It is submitted that without considering the same, Ext.P8

order has been passed on 19.05.2021 appointing an Enquiry Officer.

The essential complaint of the petitioner is that he was unable to

peruse the documents which were relied on in the order of

suspension as well as the memo of charges.

4. I notice that the petitioner was given an opportunity as early

as on 17.02.2021 to approach the concerned office and take extracts

of the records which have been relied on. It is submitted by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could not travel

and his representative had gone to the concerned office to take the

extracts, however, he was not permitted to do so. It is therefore

contended that the reply he has now submitted to the memo of

charges is not complete since he has not perused the records.

Having considered the contentions advanced and having heard

the learned Standing Counsel, I am of the opinion that the grievance

of the petitioner can be redressed, if he is given a further opportunity

to peruse the records and to take extracts therefrom within a period

of ten days from today. If the petitioner approaches the concerned

office within ten days with a written request to peruse the records

and to take extracts therefrom, he will be permitted to do so. The

petitioner will also be permitted to submit a further reply to the

show cause notice within two weeks thereafter which shall be

considered by the respondents before proceeding with the enquiry.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE SVP

APPENDIX

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 14.12.2020

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES AND STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS DATED 30.12.2020.

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF REQUEST DATED 17.01.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF REQUEST DATED 08.03.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 09.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENSE DATED 16.03.2021 SUBMITTE BY THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.05.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT