[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Sajilal S vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd on 13 February, 2026

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

                                                        2026:KER:12596

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

     FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 24TH MAGHA, 1947

                       WP(C) NO. 30458 OF 2024

PETITIONER:

          SAJILAL S.
          AGED 56 YEARS
          S/O SWAMINATHAN CHETTIYAR,
          T.C 29/369, THENGAPURA LANE,
          PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
          PIN - 695024

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE
          SRI.P.A.REJIMON
          SMT.NIKITA NAIR C.S.
          SRI.VIVEKJOS PUTHUKULANGARA
          SMT.MAHIMA MERINE REJI



RESPONDENTS:

    1     KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD
          REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY (ADMINISTRATION),
          VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
          PIN - 695004

    2     CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
          KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
          VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004

    3     THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER AND
          PROJECT MANAGER PES CIVIL CIRCLE
          KSEBL MEENCUT, CHITHIRAPURAM,
          PIN - 685565
                                             2026:KER:12596
W.P.(C) No.30458/2024
                            :2:


    4      P.N. BIJU
           AGED 56 YEARS
           FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
           PAZHUKUNNAMPURATH, OLAMATTOM, THODUPUZHA P.O.,
           IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685584

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH, STANDING COUNSEL
          SRI.REGI MATHEW
          SRI.TOMY CHACKO


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 01.12.2025, THE COURT ON 13.02.2026 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                 2026:KER:12596
W.P.(C) No.30458/2024
                                       :3:




                            N. NAGARESH, J.

           `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                       W.P.(C) No.30458 of 2024

           `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
              Dated this the 13th day of February, 2026


                             JUDGMENT

~~~~~~~~~

Petitioner, who has been removed from the

service of the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited on the

ground of unauthorised absence, seeks to declare that the

removal of the petitioner from the services of the KSEBL is

illegal.

2. The petitioner states that while working as

Executive Engineer at Pallivasal, he was subjected to mental

harassment and was unable to discharge his duties. By G.O.

dated 12.12.2012, he was deputed to National Games,

Secretariat on deputation for one year. The petitioner 2026:KER:12596

requested for relieving him for joining the National Games,

Secretariat as per letter dated 04.01.2013. But, the Deputy

Chief Engineer directed the petitioner not to avail deputation.

The petitioner was pressurised to continue in KSEBL. The

deputation order was cancelled as per Ext.P4 order dated

21.03.2013.

3. The petitioner filed an application for Half

Pay Leave for seven days with effect from 03.04.2013 on

personal grounds. The leave was sanctioned. The

petitioner's application for extension of Half Pay Leave for a

further period of 21 days, up to 20.04.2013 was also

sanctioned. The petitioner further sought extension of Half

Pay Leave upto 14.06.2013 and for Leave Without Allowance

for a further period of one year from 15.06.2013 on personal

grounds.

4. The petitioner was ready to rejoin even

before the expiry of the leave. But, the petitioner was denied

the chance to rejoin duty. On the other hand, the 4th 2026:KER:12596

respondent was given illegal promotion to the post held by

the petitioner. A memo of charge dated 30.09.2013 was

issued to the petitioner alleging unauthorised absence with

effect from 01.05.2013, as per Ext.P9. The petitioner

submitted Ext.P11 written statement dated 16.11.2013. The

Enquiry Officer submitted Ext.P12 enquiry report dated

07.03.2015 holding that the petitioner was suffering from

severe mental strain and depression. A show-cause notice

was issued after 35 months from the date of submission of

enquiry report.

5. The disciplinary authority rejected the

explanations offered by the petitioner and imposed penalty of

removal from service as per Ext.P17 order dated 04.04.2018.

The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected as per

Ext.P19. The review petition of the petitioner was also

dismissed as per Ext.P21. The petitioner filed W.P.(C)

No.7182/2020 challenging the order of removal.

2026:KER:12596

6. The writ petition was disposed of by a

learned Single Judge of this Court confirming the findings of

the Enquiry Officer and converting the punishment of removal

from service to compulsory retirement, as per Ext.P22

judgment. The respondents filed W.A. No.768/2022. The

Division Bench set aside Ext.P22 judgment and Ext.P21

order in review petition and directed the Board of the KSEBL

to reconsider the review petition submitted by the petitioner.

The Division Bench also directed to consider the

proportionality of the punishment imposed on the petitioner.

7. The Board, however, rejected the review

petition as per Ext.P27 order. The petitioner states that he

was not heard before passing Ext.P27 and the Board did not

consider proportionality of the punishment. The petitioner

states that the major punishment of removal was imposed on

him on the basis of an endorsement in the postal cover to the

effect that 'Addressee left India'. The Postman was not

examined in the enquiry. The postal cover was not made 2026:KER:12596

available to the petitioner during the enquiry.

8. The petitioner states that there was no

earlier history of misconduct or dereliction of duty on the part

of the petitioner. The petitioner could not resume duty since

a substitute was appointed in his place and his name was

removed from the Attendance Book with effect from

01.08.2013. The entire disciplinary proceedings are vitiated

by irregularities, asserted the petitioner.

9. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shri Bhagwan Lal

Arya v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and others [(2004)

4 SCC 560] and contended that absence for more than two

months on medical grounds with sanction of leave cannot be

regarded as a grave misconduct or continued misconduct

rendering one unfit to continue in service and dismissal on

that ground is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence.

10. The counsel also relied on the judgment of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union 2026:KER:12596

of India and another [(2012) 3 SCC 178] and argued that if

absence is due to compelling circumstances under which it is

not possible to report for or perform duty, such absence

cannot be held to be willful and employee guilty of

misconduct.

11. Respondents 1 to 3 resisted the writ petition

filing counter affidavit. The respondents stated that the

petitioner took leave for 28 days from 03.04.2013 to

30.04.2013 and after the leave period, sought further

extensions of leave. The petitioner was informed to resume

duty as per Ext.P13 letter dated 08.05.2013 and the letter

was returned with remark "Addressee left India". The

petitioner left India for employment abroad. Therefore, the

petitioner was proceeded against.

12. The charges framed against the petitioner

were grave in nature and were proved in the departmental

enquiry. Hence, a major punishment of removal was

proposed. In view of the Division Bench judgment of this 2026:KER:12596

Court, the Board examined the contentions made by the

petitioner. The Board found that the contentions are not true.

On 19.06.2024, the Board resolved not to modify or alter the

order of punishment.

13. The respondents stated that the alleged

mental strain of the petitioner was not discussed with any of

his superior officers during the relevant time. The

recommendations of the Enquiry Officer on the punishment to

be imposed on a delinquent officer, have no force. The

petitioner was removed from service as he was

unauthorisedly absent from duty with effect from 01.05.2013

without any sanctioned leave. The unauthorised absence

was willful and deliberate. Therefore, the punishment of

removal imposed on the petitioner is commensurate with the

misconduct.

14. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for

respondents 1 to 3.

2026:KER:12596

15. The charges levelled against the petitioner

are as follows:

(1) Absented from duty, unauthorisedly, with effect from 01.05.2013. (2) Neither attended the calls made from the Head Quarters, on his available phone contact, nor contacted the authorities concerned for reporting his inability to return to duty and the reasons thereof.

        (3)       Left   India          without   obtaining
        permission from the Board.
        (4)       Committed grave misconduct and
        dereliction of duty.

16. The Enquiry Officer found the four charges

as proved. However, the Enquiry Officer concluded thus:

"Considering the fact that the delinquent officer was suffering from mental depression, mental strain and a confused state of mind and that he had expressed his sincere apologies regarding the core issue viz. leaving the country without Board sanction 2026:KER:12596

and that there is no further history of misconduct or dereliction of duty against the delinquent officer, it is recommended that the Board may take a lenient view against the action to be taken against the delinquent officer."

17. The 2nd respondent, however, imposed the

punishment of removal from service with effect from

01.05.2013 on the petitioner, as per Ext.P17. The petitioner's

appeal petition was rejected as per Ext.P19. His petition for

review was also rejected as per Ext.P21.

18. In W.P.(C) No.7182/2020 filed by the

petitioner, a learned Single Judge of this Court found that the

punishment of removal from service is shockingly

disproportionate. The learned Single Judge was of the

opinion that the next lower punishment of compulsory

retirement from service will be commensurate with the

alleged misconduct. The writ petition was allowed partly 2026:KER:12596

affirming the imposition of penalty and converting the

punishment as compulsory retirement.

19. The petitioner as well as the respondents

filed writ appeals against Ext.P22 judgment. In the writ

appeals, the Division Bench held that apart from a

recommendation made by the enquiring authority, there was

no reason for the learned Single Judge to hold that the

penalty imposed was shockingly disproportionate. The

Division Bench therefore set aside Ext.P22 judgment as also

Ext.P11 order (Ext.P21 in this writ petition) and disposed of

the writ appeal directing the Board of KSEBL to pass fresh

orders taking note of the contentions raised by the petitioner

on facts and in law. The petitioner was permitted to file a

detailed argument note.

20. The Board, however, resolved not to modify

or alter the punishment of removal. The Board held that

willful absence from duty is a grave misconduct. The

punishment was imposed following due procedure. The 2026:KER:12596

contention of the petitioner regarding mental strain and

untoward events cannot be considered as the petitioner had

not discussed such a matter with any superior officer. The

petitioner's application for extension of leave was rejected

and the matter was communicated to the petitioner with a

direction to rejoin duty. The petitioner did not turn up.

21. From Ext.P27, I find that the Board has

considered the proportionality of the punishment. The

petitioner was required to rejoin duty when he was

unauthorisedly absent. Non-sanctioning of the leave was

communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner has not, at

any point of time, expressed his willingness to resume duty.

The contention of the petitioner that he did not rejoin duty as

a substitute was appointed in his post cannot be accepted.

The petitioner was working as Executive Engineer and not in

any inferior post. Even though the post occupied by him was

not vacant, the petitioner could have approached superior

authorities. That was not done. As unauthorised absence 2026:KER:12596

under such circumstances is a grave offence, it cannot be

said that the punishment of removal awarded is shockingly

disproportionate.

22. As rightly held by the Division Bench of this

Court, the role of the Enquiry Officer is to enquire into the

charges to decide whether the charges are proved or not.

Any recommendation of an Enquiry Officer regarding the

quantum of punishment has no force and such

recommendations will be misconceived. The petitioner might

have suffered mental strain for some period. But, that is not

a reason for the petitioner not to take any steps to resume

duty for a considerably long time, when his leave applications

were not allowed.

23. The petitioner has a case that there is

discrimination as regards the quantum of punishment. The

argument is that in similar circumstances and for a similar

offence, another employee named Bushara V. was let off by

dropping further disciplinary proceedings. The respondents 2026:KER:12596

would point out that in the case of the said Smt.Bushara V.,

LWA was granted to her and the LWA was extended also for

four years. The respondents found that the extension of LWA

was sought on genuine grounds. In the circumstances, the

petitioner cannot make a comparison with the case of

Bushara V.

For all the afore reasons, I find that Ext.P17

order cannot be interfered with on all or any of the grounds

urged by the petitioner. The writ petition is hence dismissed.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/11.02.2026 2026:KER:12596

APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 30458 OF 2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P-1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF (GO) (RT) NO:

284/12/S & YA DATED 12-12-2012 Exhibit P-2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF BO (CM) NO: 31/2013 (ESTT. IV/6937/2012) DATED THIRUVANAN THAPURAM 03-01-2013 Exhibit P-3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 04-01-2013 OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P-4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO: EB/21 GEN/2012-13/62 DATED 21-03-2013 ISSUED BY DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER AND PROJECT MANAGER PES CIVIL CIRCLE, MEENCUT, CHITHIRAPURAM Exhibit P-5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21-03-2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT Exhibit P-6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY NO: DB-

4/CCM/RIA/2018-19/393 DATED 09-04-2019 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF CIVIL CIRCLE OFFICE OF KSEB MEENCUT Exhibit P-7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF MEMO OF CHARGES NO:

EBVS.5/8/2013/341 DATED 18-04-2013 ISSUED BY CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) OF KSEB Exhibit P-8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO:

VIG/B1/501/15(61)/974 DATED 02-05-2015 ISSUED BY CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER OF KSEBL Exhibit P-9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES NO: VIG/ALL/5416/2013/1934/4-10-2013 DATED 30-09-2013 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF KSEBL Exhibit P-10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO:

EB/15/DISC.ACTION/2013-2014/283 DATED 23-10-2013 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER AND PROJECT MANAGER CIVIL CIRCLE MEENCUT 2026:KER:12596

Exhibit P-11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 16-11-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P-12 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 07-03-2015 Exhibit P-13 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO:

EB/16/LEAVE/2013-2014/90 DATED 08-05- 2013 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CIVIL CIRCLE MEENCUT Exhibit P-14 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF RETURNED POSTAL COVER Exhibit P-15 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO: VIG/A2/5416/2013/418 DATED 09-02-

Exhibit P-16 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23- 02-2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P-17 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO:

VIG/A2/5416/2013/1030 DATED TVPM 04- 04-2018 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OF KSEBL Exhibit P-18 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 17- 07-2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P-19 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO:

VIG/A2/5416/2013 DATED THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: 29-08-2018 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OF KSEBL Exhibit P-20 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 14-12-2018 Exhibit P-21 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO: BO (DB) NO:229/2019 (VIG/A2/5416/2013) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 12-03-2019 ISSUED BY THE BOARD OF KSEBL Exhibit P-22 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28-03-2022 IN W.P (C) NO: 7182/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P-23 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14-02-2024 IN W.A NO:768/2022 AND W.A NO: 794/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P-24 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26- 02-2024 SENT BY THE PETITIONER 2026:KER:12596

Exhibit P-25 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04- 06-2024 SENT BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P-26 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 19- 07-2024 IN CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) NO:1555/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P-27 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF BO (DB) NO:297/2024 (VIG/A2/5416/2013) TVPM DATED 29-06- 2024/277 ISSUED BY KSEBL Exhibit P-28 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF B.O (CMD) NO: