Bejoy Rajan vs Kerala State Electricity Board ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8536 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
 MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1945
                       WP(C) NO. 16486 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

               BEJOY RAJAN
               AGED 48 YEARS
               S/O RAJAPPAN, SENIOR ASSISTANT, ELECTRICAL
               SECTION, KSEB, MANJERI SOUTH, MALAPPURAM
               DISTRICT, RESIDING AT SSP 15: 110 KV SUB
               STATION, KSEB, VENNAKKALA, THIRUNELLAYI.P.O.,
               PALAKKAD DISTRICT,, PIN - 678020
               BY ADVS.
               M.SASINDRAN
               JOGGY MATHUNNI


RESPONDENTS:

    1          KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD
               REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING
               DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.,
               VAIDYTHI BHAVAN PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
               - 695004
    2          THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
               KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., VAIDYUTHI
               BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -, PIN -
               695004
    3          THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM)
               VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
               PIN - 695004
    4          THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB
               ELECTRICAL DIVISION, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, MANJERI,
               MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676121
               SRI.K.S.ANIL[SC]



        THIS    WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)   HAVING    COME   UP    FOR
ADMISSION       ON   07.08.2023,   THE    COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 16486 OF 2023
                                  2




                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner effectively challenges Ext.P6 - which is a

notice issued by the Disciplinary Authority, constituted in a

Disciplinary Enquiry being conducted against him - asking to show

cause why punishment of removal from service be not imposed

upon him.

2. Sri.M.Sasindran - learned counsel for the petitioner,

vehemently argued that Ext.P6 is untenable because, going by

Ext.P3 - Enquiry Report, no charges have been found proved

against his client; and that imputation that he had caused

inconvenience to a lady employee is also no longer relevant

because she has withdrawn the said complaint. He argued that,

therefore, the entire action pursuant to Ext.P3 Enquiry Report,

culminating in Ext.P6 notice, is untenable and thus liable to be set

aside by this Court.

3. In response, Sri.K.S.Anil - learned Standing Counsel

for the KSEB, argued that this Writ Petition is not maintainable

because, against Ext.P6, the petitioner obtains an efficacious

alternative statutory remedy, of filing an appeal before the

competent statutory Appellate Authority. He reiterated that,

therefore, the petitioner could not have filed this Writ Petition; and

hence prayed that it be dismissed.

WP(C) NO. 16486 OF 2023

4. When I evaluate the afore submissions and go through

the materials on record, it is indubitable that Ext.P6 is the order of

the Disciplinary Authority, imposing certain punishments on the

petitioner. If he has any grievance against the same, his remedy is

to approach the competent Appellate Authority; and I do not think

that it will be justified for this Court to enter into the controversy at

this stage in any manner, whatsoever.

Resultantly, I order this Writ Petition, granting liberty to the

petitioner to move the competent Appellate Authority against

Ext.P6; and if this is done within a period of two weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, same shall be

considered by it, after affording him an opportunity of being heard,

as per applicable rules; thus culminating in an appropriate order

and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but

not later than two months thereafter.

Needless to say, until such time as the afore exercise is

completed and the resultant order communicated to the petitioner,

the interim order granted by this Court on 24.05.2023 will continue

to be in effect.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

lsn WP(C) NO. 16486 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16486/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 07.04.2022 OF THE INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE, PALAKKAD Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO NO.EBVS.8/6/2022/108 ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS DATED 21.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 29.12.2022 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.EBVS.8/6/2022/760 DATED 28.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 A COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 09.03.2023 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT. P4 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. EBVS.

8/6/2022 DATED 18.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT RESPONDENT EXHIBITS: NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE

LSN