In a writ petition challenging disciplinary orders imposing punishment for alleged misconduct, the Court held that the petitioner failed to verify the necessity of an agricultural connection despite visiting the site. Finding the punishment minor and the Board lenient, the Court found no illegality in the impugned orders and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2010 / 9TH ASWINA 1932
WP(C).No. 17953 of 2005(K)
-------------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S): -----------------------
K.VIJAYAN, S/O.LATE V.KRISHNAN, AMBATTU VEEDU, MEENAM, EDAVANAKKAVU, KAVANADU P.O., KOLLAM.
BY SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR, SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN, SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR.
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------------------
1. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER(HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM.
4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KAVANADU P.O., KOLLAM.
R1 TO R4 BY ADV.SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
WPC.NO.17953/2005 K
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
Kss
S. Siri Jagan, J.
W.P(C) No. 17953 of 2005
Dated this, the 1st day of October, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
While the petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer in the Electrical Major Section, Sakthikulangara of the Kerala State Electricity Board, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing Ext. P5 memo of charges. Although, several charges have been mentioned therein, the essence of the charges is that the petitioner gave electricity connection for agricultural purposes under the agricultural tariff, although the connection was not actually for agricultural purposes. The petitioner filed Ext. P6 statement of defence to the memo of charges. Subsequent to the same, Ext. P7 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner directing him to show cause why the punishment of barring of next one increment with cumulative effect should not be imposed on the petitioner and the loss of Rs. 19,850/- caused on account of the misconduct committed by the petitioner should not be recovered from him. The petitioner filed Ext. P8 reply to the same. After considering the same, by Ext. P9 order, a punishment of barring of one increment without cumulative effect and recovery of Rs. 19,850/- being 50% of the loss sustained by the Board with interest thereon at 24% from the date of the memo of charges was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same, which was dismissed by Ext. P10 order of the Board. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P9 and P10 seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ order or direction quashing Exts. P9 and P10 orders of respondents 1 and 2 respectively;
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 and 2 to drop all disciplinary proceedings in the above case;
W.P.C. No. 17953/05 -: 2 :-
(iii) grant the petitioner such other appropriate reliefs that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant on the facts and circumstances of the case.”
The contention of the petitioner is that by Exts.P1 and P2, the agricultural officer of Krishi Bhavan, Sakthikulangara had certified that the consumers in question had installed an one H.P. Pump set and electricity connection can be give for installation of the pump set which is purely for agricultural purposes. According to him, he had no mala fide intention and it was based on Exts.P1 and P2 certificates, it was decided to recommend granting of electricity connection to those consumers. He would submit that his elaborate contentions in Ext. P8 had not been considered by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority while passing the impugned orders. He submits that he is not guilty of any misconduct whatsoever and therefore he should not have been imposed with any punishment for the alleged misconduct. He further points out that one of the consumers had filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum against disconnection of their electricity connection which, although, was dismissed, in the order dismissing the same, namely, Ext. P11, there was a finding that the complainant was using the current for agricultural purpose under LT-V tariff. Since that finding has become final, the petitioner cannot be held to be guilty of any misconduct in granting electricity connection for agricultural purpose to the consumers in question.
W.P.C. No. 17953/05 -: 3 :-
recommended grant of agricultural connection to them. According to them, the petitioner had not recorded what type of agricultural activity the consumers were engaged in. They would point out that as is clear from Ext. P12 order of the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electricity Circle, Kollam, in the property in question, there were only coconut trees and the land was surrounded by water obviating any necessity for irrigation. Therefore, no agricultural connection could have been granted for any agricultural activity in that property.
W.P.C. No. 17953/05 -: 4 :-
also, the only statement is that the property was cultivated with coconut trees and the purpose of electricity connection was for watering the coconut trees. Notwithstanding Exts.P1 and P2 certificates from the Agricultural Officer, it was the duty of the petitioner to inspect the property and satisfy himself that the consumers are entitled to connection for agricultural purposes. Obviously, the petitioner has not discharged that duty.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was guilty of misconduct in granting an agricultural electricity connection without verifying if agricultural activity was actually taking place on the premises.
Whether the punishment imposed barring one increment and recovery of loss was sustainable in law.
Whether a finding by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum that the consumer used current for agricultural purposes absolves the petitioner of misconduct charges.
K.VIJAYAN
THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM
S. SIRI JAGAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
