Pramod T.K vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd
2025 Latest Caselaw 4716 Ker

Kerala High Court

Pramod T.K vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd on 4 March, 2025

Author: D. K. Singh

Bench: D. K. Singh

                                                            2025:KER:18365
WP(C) NO. 11066 OF 2024

                                    1
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH

         TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1946

                          WP(C) NO. 11066 OF 2024


PETITIONER/S:

            PRAMOD T.K.
            AGED 55 YEARS
            S/O. T.S. KESAVAN, SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION
            KALPETTA, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., KALPETTA
            P.O., PIN: 673 121., RESIDING AT SARANG, NEDUNGODE ROAD,
            AMBILERY, KALPETTA P.O. WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673121


            BY ADVS.
            SAJITH KUMAR V.
            H.KIRAN
            VIVEK A.V.
            SREEHARI V.S.
            AMMU M.
            SHERIN DAVIS




RESPONDENT/S:

     1      KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (ADMINISTRATION), VYDHUTHI
            BHAVANAM, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695004

     2      THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
            LIMITED
            VYDHUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695004

     3      THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
            O/O. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION KALPETTA,
            WAYANAD, PIN - 673121

     4      THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ENQUIRY OFFICER
                                                                2025:KER:18365
WP(C) NO. 11066 OF 2024

                                        2
            O/O. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B. LTD.,
            ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION KOTTAKKAL, KOTTAKKAL P.O.,, PIN -
            676503



OTHER PRESENT:

            K.S. ANIL-SC


     THIS   WRIT   PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
04.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                       2025:KER:18365
WP(C) NO. 11066 OF 2024

                                  3
                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner, working as a Sub Engineer of Kerala State

Electricity Board Ltd ('the Board' for short) has approached this

court impugning the punishment order dated 07.01.2023 in

Ext.P10, whereby the petitioner was imposed with punishment of

withholding 3 annual increments with cumulative effect.

2.The said punishment order has been upheld by the

revisional authority vide the order dated 07.09.2023 in Ext.P17 as

well as the appellate authority vide the order dated 05.12.2023 in

Ext.P18.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the

petitioner was not afforded the opportunity to lead the evidence,

and therefore, there has been a violation of the principle of natural

justice while conducting the disciplinary enquiry against him. The

denial of adducing the evidence to the petitioner has vitiated the

whole enquiry; therefore, the punishment order, appellate and

revisional orders are to be set aside.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent Board has denied 2025:KER:18365 WP(C) NO. 11066 OF 2024

the allegation that the petitioner was denied the opportunity of

leading the evidence. In fact, it is stated that the petitioner told the

enquiry officer that the question of leading the evidence by him

would not arise, and such a question was irrelevant as he had

requested thorough consideration of re-enquiry in the matter.

5.Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the additional counter affidavit filed

on behalf of the 3rd respondent would read as under:-

"5.With respect to the averment in paragraph 9 of the writ petition, it is submitted that, the contention of the Delinquent/Petitioner that he was not given an opportunity to present his witnesses/documents is untrue. It is to be noted that even though the petitioner received a copy of Ext. P4 proceedings dated 06.11.2019, on 27.01.2020, petitioner did not chose to submit any list of witnesses and documents to be examined or directed from his side. The contention that the petitioner he had simultaneously given a list of witnesses and documents relied on to the Enquiry Officer, is far from true. The petitioner did not furnish any list before the Enquiry Officer.

6. With respect to the averment of the petitioner in paragraph 10, it is submitted that the petitioner had represented before the authority regarding the injustice meted out to him, requesting a re-inquiry on the matter. The same statement is seen recorded in the deposition by the Petitioner in Exbt.P 5 (However, the first referred representation is not found in the inquiry files kept at the office of Disc. Authority). On 06-11- 2019 the Disc Authority (DA) issued Exbt.P4 document, directing the Enquiry Officer (EO) to update the inquiry after affording the Delinquent/Petitioner an opportunity to present his witnesses/Documents.

7. It is submitted that, accordingly, the Enquiry Officer decided to update the inquiry and decided to conduct the first sitting (third in total) on 27-01-2020. The Delinquent/Petitioner presented himself on the day and time of hearing. Going by the direction contained in the Exbt. P4 letter, the Enquiry Officer asked him whether he is willing to produce any witnesses/documents. To this question, the 2025:KER:18365 WP(C) NO. 11066 OF 2024

Delinquent/Petitioner replied that such a question is irrelevant at this point of time, as he had already requested for a thorough re- inquiry in the matter. (Exbt. P5). This statement would show that. Delinquent/Petitioner at that particular point of time was not aware of the Exbt.P4 proceedings which contains the direction to the Enquiry Officer to update the inquiry after giving an opportunity to the Delinquent/Petitioner to present his witnesses/documents. It is seen that the Delinquent/Petitioner on the same day submitted a representation before the D A, stating that he came to know the existence of Exbt.P4 document only on 27- 01-2020, while attending the proceedings, and demanded an inquiry in to the incidents that led to the denial of the EXbt.P4 document to him. It is seen from the files that; the said document (Ext.P4) was served on 27-01-2020."

6.The petitioner was issued with a charge sheet having the

following charges:-

Charge sheet (Submitted against Mr. T K Pramod, who was the Overseer of Kalpetta section (now in Mepppadi section)) Prima facie it has been found that Mr. T K Pramod, who was the Overseer at Kalpetta electrical section (now in Meppadi section), involved in the following misconduct. 1. You have prepared an estimate for providing domestic connection in a shed under construction by misusing the Complete Electrification Scheme. 2. Also provided domestic electricity connection to the shed under construction as consumer number 37970. 3. It is believed that you have made financial loss to the board due to your act and your unlawful interference with the above act. 4. Your non-submission of reply against the show-cause notice issued to you by the Assistant Engineer under reference (1) in relation to the above shall be regarded as serious default on your part as a responsible officer. Misuse of the institution for personal financial gain and unauthorized interference tarnishes the image of the institution. 5. After preliminary inquiry, it is found that the above act from your part amounts to gross misconduct, negligence and unmitigated failure in the discharge of the official duties. Therefore, it is proposed to take appropriate disciplinary action against you as per the disciplinary procedure Rule and on the basis of the Executive Employees' Orders of Electricity Board, 1972 and other relevant rules. This charge sheet allows 15 days for you to file a counter claim. If your written reply to this chargesheet is not received within the specified time limit, the undersigned officer will proceed with the above action on the conclusion that you have nothing to prove in this regard. If you want to be heard in person in this regard, you should inform about it 2025:KER:18365 WP(C) NO. 11066 OF 2024

in writing. You will have an opportunity to examine the documents set out in the charge sheet before filing your defense. You will be given opportunity to inspect the documents on a suitable working day by making the written application before the last date of submission. The charges on which the charge sheet is framed is enclosed herewith.

7.Before issuing the charge sheet a preliminary enquiry was

conducted and prima facie it was found that the petitioner was

involved in committing the following misconduct;

1. You have prepared an estimate for providing domestic connection in a shed under construction by misusing the Complete Electrification Scheme.

2. Also provided domestic electricity connection to the shed under construction as consumer number 37970.

3. It is believed that you have made financial loss to the board due to your act and your unlawful interference with the above act.

4. Your non-submission of reply against the show-cause notice issued to you by the Assistant Engineer under reference (1) in relation to the above shall be regarded as serious default on your part as a responsible officer. Misuse of the institution for personal financial gain and unauthorized interference tarnishes the image of the institution.

5. After preliminary inquiry, it is found that the above act from your part amounts to gross misconduct, negligence and unmitigated failure in the discharge of the official duties.

8.The enquiry officer specifically asked the petitioner whether

he would like to produce evidence in his defense to which he replied

as mentioned in Paragraph 7 of the additional counter affidavit

extracted hereunder: -

"7. It is submitted that, accordingly, the Enquiry Officer decided to update the inquiry and decided to conduct the first sitting (third in total) on 27-01-2020. The Delinquent/Petitioner presented himself on the day and time of hearing. Going by the direction contained in the Exbt. P4 2025:KER:18365 WP(C) NO. 11066 OF 2024

letter, the Enquiry Officer asked him whether he is willing to produce any witnesses/documents. To this question, the Delinquent/Petitioner replied that such a question is irrelevant at this point of time, as he had already requested for a thorough re- inquiry in the matter. (Exbt. P5). This statement would show that. Delinquent/Petitioner at that particular point of time was not aware of the Exbt.P4 proceedings which contains the direction to the Enquiry Officer to update the inquiry after giving an opportunity to the Delinquent/Petitioner to present his witnesses/documents. It is seen that the Delinquent/Petitioner on the same day submitted a representation before the D A, stating that he came to know the existence of Exbt.P4 document only on 27- 01-2020, while attending the proceedings, and demanded an inquiry in to the incidents that led to the denial of the EXbt.P4 document to him. It is seen from the files that; the said document (Ext.P4) was served on 27-01-2020."

9.After the conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the

petitioner was issued with a show-cause notice along with an

enquiry report proposing the punishment. The disciplinary

authority noted that the petitioner had previously been subjected

to disciplinary proceedings for misconduct. The petitioner was

heard, and thereafter, the punishment order in Ext.P10 was

inflicted upon him.

10.The appellate and revisional authorities also did not find

any substance in the appeal and the revision, and therefore, they

also dismissed them vide the impugned orders dated 07.09.2023 in

Ext.P17 and 05.12.2023 in Ext.P18, respectively.

11.When the petitioner himself said that the question of 2025:KER:18365 WP(C) NO. 11066 OF 2024

adducing the evidence in his defense would not arise as he has

requested for conducting the preliminary enquiry afresh, the

question of denial of opportunity to him for adducing the evidence

would not arise. The petitioner cannot wait till the conclusion of the

enquiry to adduce the evidence. When the petitioner's stand was

that he would not like to lead any evidence, his evidence of defense

was closed by the enquiry officer.

In view of this, I do not find that the principle of natural justice

has been violated in conducting the departmental enquiry. This

court cannot interfere with the quantum of punishment, and even

otherwise, the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is not such,

which would shock the conscience of this court. Therefore, the writ

petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

D. K. SINGH JUDGE SJ 2025:KER:18365 WP(C) NO. 11066 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11066/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET NO.

GB/GENERAL/EDK/2017-2018/1115 DATED 25.10.2017 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SCN NO. GB/DISCIPLINARY ACTION/PRAMOD/EDK/2017-18/1405 DATED 20.12.2017 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT ISSUED AS PER LETTER NO. DB/DISCIPLINARY ACTION/ESD-KTKL/19- 20/80 DATED 27.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RE-ENQUIRY ORDER NO.

GB/KPTA/DA/2019-20/932 DATED 06.11.2019 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 3RD SITTING OF THE DISCIPLINARY ENQUIRY DATED 27.01.2020 AGAINST THIS PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE DEPOSITION OF PETITIONER

Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET ISSUED TO SRI.

MANOJ P.K. AS PER LETTER NO.

GB1/EDK/DISCIPLINARY ACTION/2020-21/78 DATED 28.04.2020

Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE PUNISHMENT ORDER DATED 06.05.2021 ISSUED AS PER LETTER NO.

GB1/EDK/DISCIPLINARY ACTION/MANOJ P K/2021- 22/125 IMPOSING THE MINOR PENALTY OF 'WARNING' OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT

Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 09.12.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER DATED 11.12.2020

Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.

GB/EDK/DA/T.K. PRAMOD/2021-22/388 DATED 11.08.2021 2025:KER:18365 WP(C) NO. 11066 OF 2024

Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. GB1/EDK/D.A./PRAMOD T.K./2022-23/872 DATED 07.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. EB3/EDK/2022- 23/1054 DATED 07.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. EB3/EDK/2022- 23/DA/1094 DATED 15.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 13.03.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITHOUT EXHIBITS

Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.

GB1/E.C.K./APPEAL/2023-24/187 DATED 16.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. EB3/EDK/2023- 24/198 DATED 07.06.2023 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 14.08.2023 SUBMITTED BY THIS PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.

GB1/E.C.K./APPEAL/2023-24/690 DATED 07.09.2023 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.

GB1/E.C.K./APPEAL/2023-24/998 DATED 05.12.2023 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHIEF EXAMINATION AND CROSS EXAMINATION OF PW2 SUNIL THOMAS, LINEMAN, KALPETTA

Exhibit P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY CONNECTION APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY MR. FAISAL ALONG WITH THE OFFICE ENDORSEMENT EVIDENCING ISSUANCE OF CONNECTION AND CONSUMER NUMBER ASSIGNED BY THE KSEB LTD., ISSUED UNDER RTI ACT 2025:KER:18365 WP(C) NO. 11066 OF 2024

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

Exhibit R 3 (a) True copy of the letter dated 19.06.2020 with translation

Exhibit R 3 (b) True copy of the representation submitted by petitioner with translation