Kerala High Court
Sreenivasan.P.K vs State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2024
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
2024:KER:69360
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 20TH BHADRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 12664 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SREENIVASAN.P.K
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O KUTTAPPAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (UNDER ORDERS OF
SUSPENSION), ELECTRICAL SECTION NO.1, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI
RESIDING AT PUTHIYEDATHU (H). UDUMBANNOOR.P.O,
IDUKKI - 685 595, PIN - 685 584.
BY ADVS.
S.PRASANTH (AYYAPPANKAVU)
VARSHA BHASKAR
ANUPAMA SIBI
MALAVIKA K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, POWER DEPARTMENT.
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 039.
2 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 004.
3 THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 004.
4 CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM)
VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 004.
WP(C) NO. 12664 OF 2024
: 2 : 2024:KER:69360
5 THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, THODUPUZHA, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM,
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685 584.
6 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ELECTRICAL DIVISION, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685 584.
7 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685 584.
BY ADVS.
V.K. SUNIL, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
K.S. ANIL, STANDING COUNSEL.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.09.2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 12664 OF 2024
: 3 : 2024:KER:69360
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is working as Assistant Engineer in
the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB). While he was
working at the Electrical Section, Thodupuza, he was
suspended from service as per Ext.P12 order dated
29.07.2023, in contemplation of departmental enquiry.
Pursuant to Ext.P12, the petitioner was issued with
Ext.P13 memo of charges. However, the enquiry pursuant
to Ext.P13 has not been brought to a logical conclusion
and the petitioner is continuing under suspension from
29.07.2023. Aggrieved by the prolonged suspension, the
petitioner has filed this writ petition for the following
reliefs:-
"i) To issue an order setting aside Ext.P12 suspension
order;
WP(C) NO. 12664 OF 2024
: 4 : 2024:KER:69360
ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents
2 to 5 to reinstate the petitioner in service;
iii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3 rd
respondent to consider and pass order on Ext.P17
representation;
iv) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1 st
respondent to consider and pass order on Ext.P18
representation;
v) To issue an order directing the respondents 2 to 5
to treat the period of suspension of the petitioner
as duty for all purposes."
2. Dr. Thushara James, the learned Standing
Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board submits
that the departmental enquiry initiated pursuant to
Ext.P13 is not so far concluded and therefore, the
petitioner is not reinstated in service.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
WP(C) NO. 12664 OF 2024
: 5 : 2024:KER:69360
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7996 of 2024, against
whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated along
with the petitioner, has been reinstated in service
pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated 05.08.2024
in the said writ petition. Paragraphs 7 to 9 thereof read
as follows:-
"7. It is trite that the purpose of suspension of an
employee is to ensure that the employee concerned
is not in a position to interfere with or in any
manner manipulates the records or do anything that
would affect the conduct of a proper inquiry into the
alleged acts of commission or omission by the
employee concerned. Keeping an employee under
suspension for long will not serve the purpose and
object behind suspension from service. In order to
prevent the employee from interfering with the
enquiry or influencing the witnesses, the employer
can transfer the employee from the station at which
WP(C) NO. 12664 OF 2024
: 6 : 2024:KER:69360
he committed the alleged misconduct to any other
station.
8. This Court in K. K. Ramankutty v. State of Kerala
and Another, [1972 KHC 284: 1972 KLJ 418: ILR
1972 (2) Ker. 4] considered the purpose of keeping
an officer under suspension during the course of
disciplinary proceedings against him. The Court in
paragraph 28 held as follows;
"28. The suspension of a member of an All
India Service or for that matter of any Civil
servant against whom disciplinary
proceedings are initiated is not to be
intended as a punishment. The order of
suspension should not normally depend
merely on the gravity of charges but should
depend upon a consideration of the question
Whether it is necessary to keep him away
from the post of office that he occupies. The
effect of passing an order of suspension is to
keep such officer away from his office for
the time being and is intended to deprive
him of the powers of the office temporarily.
Its objective is to remove him from his
sphere of influence during the investigation
WP(C) NO. 12664 OF 2024
: 7 : 2024:KER:69360
into and trial of the charges against him and
this may be necessary to avoid
embarrassment to the officer as well as his
subordinates and associates in office. It may
be that some or many of the records which
are in his custody may have to be looked
into. His colleagues or subordinates or
sometimes even his superiors in office may
have to be questioned. To keep the officer in
his office when there is necessity to find out
facts from people working under him or
with him, and to examine papers in his
office Would be causing considerable
embarrassment, if not annoyance to him as
well as to others There may be cases where
such suspension may be justified also to
avoid misuse of the authority of his office,
misuse which may result in obstruction to
the proper trial of the charges against him.
The situation could be met by the officer
being kept under suspension or in some
cases merely by transferring the officer away
from the scene, the choice necessarily
depending upon the exigencies of the
situation..."
WP(C) NO. 12664 OF 2024
: 8 : 2024:KER:69360
9. Emphasising the need of expedition and diligence
at every stage in departmental inquiries, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudary (supra) held
as follows'
"14. We, therefore, direct that the currency
of a Suspension Order should not extend
beyond three months if within this period
the Memorandum of Charges / Charge -
sheet is not served on the delinquent officer
/ employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/
Charge - sheet is served a reasoned/order
must be passed for the extension of the
suspension. As in the case in hand, the
Government is free to transfer the concerned
person to any Department in any of its
offices within or outside the State so as to
sever any local or personal contact that he
may have and which he may misuse for
obstructing the investigation against him.
The Government may also prohibit him from
contacting any person, or handling records
and documents till the stage of his having
to prepare his defence. We think this will
adequately safeguard the universally
recognized principle of human dignity and
WP(C) NO. 12664 OF 2024
: 9 : 2024:KER:69360
the right to a speedy trial and shall also
preserve the interest of the Government in
the prosecution. We recognize that previous
Constitution Benches have been reluctant to
quash proceedings on the grounds of delay,
and to set time limits to their duration.
However, the imposition of a limit on the
period of suspension has not been discussed
in prior case law, and would not be
contrary to the interests of justice.
Furthermore, the direction of the Central
Vigilance Commission that pending a
criminal investigation departmental
proceedings are to be held in abeyance
stands superseded in view of the stand
adopted by us."
5. The petitioner has been under suspension for
more than a year and there is no public interest in
keeping him under suspension any longer. On the
contrary, the larger public interest demands that the
petitioner be reinstated pending the enquiry and be paid
WP(C) NO. 12664 OF 2024
: 10 : 2024:KER:69360
salary for the work performed. Accordingly, there will
be a direction to the competent among the respondents
to reinstate the petitioner in service within a period of
three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. It will be open to the respondents to give
him a posting in any district other than Idukki and in a
wing in which orumanet role cannot be assessed by him
and where he is not in a position to interfere in any
manner with the conduct of enquiry.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above
direction.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
SRJ
WP(C) NO. 12664 OF 2024
: 11 : 2024:KER:69360
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12664/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TRANSFER OF
CHARGE DATED 4-03-2023.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TRANSFER OF
CHARGE DATED 15-05-2023.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED 22-05-
2023.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25-05-2023 SENT BY
THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 29-05-2023
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE STATION
HOUSE OFFICER, THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION ALONG
WITH THE RECEIPT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 31-05-2023
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 7TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 22-05-2023
GIVEN BY SRI.SUJITH.E.V.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF REPORT NO. RB/ANOMALY/2023-24/78
DATED 25-05-2023 SENT BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO
THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. GB1/SAJI
THOMAS/THODUPUZHA/2022-23/394 DATED 27-05-2023
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. GB1/WINCE
KURIAKOSE/THODUPUZHA/2022-23/395 DATED 27-05-
2023 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM REPORT NO. VIG/B7/100-
189/2022 DATED 24-07-2023 SUBMITTED BY THE
WP(C) NO. 12664 OF 2024
: 12 : 2024:KER:69360
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(VIGILANCE).
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.
GB1/SRINIVASAN/THODUPUZHA/2022-23/976 DATED 29-
07-2023 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF MEMO OF CHARGES AND STATEMENT
OF ALLEGATIONS NO. GB1/DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING/
THODUPUZHA/2023-24 /765 DATED 07-11-2023 ISSUED
BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF DEFENCE DATED
01-12-2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 01-12-2023
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
EB1/REINSTATEMENT/THODUPUZHA/2023-24/1985 DATED
04-12-2023 SENT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE
4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 03-02-2024
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT.
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 12-03-2024
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. GB1/DISCIPLINARY
PROCEEDING/THODUPUZHA/2023-24/2970 DATED 08-03-
2024 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
