Allowed

P.K.Lakshmanan v. Senior Superintendent Transmission Circl

Kerala HC14 Oct 2010WP(C)/5262/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, reinstated after criminal acquittal, contests denial of service benefits for suspension period. Court held authorities failed to apply Rule 56B of Part I of KSR regarding whether suspension was wholly unjustified. Petition allowed with direction to pass fresh orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed. Fourth respondent directed to consider entitlement to part of service benefits and pass fresh orders within one month.

P.K.Lakshmanan Vs Senior Superintendent… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2010 / 22ND ASWINA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 5262 of 2007(B)

¶6

¶7

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶8

P.K.LAKSHMANAN, OVERSEER, 66 KV SUBSTATION, ERNAKULAM NORTH.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.PAULSON C.VARGHESE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, HMT COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERY.

¶13

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MASTER PLAN DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THE CHIEF ENGINEER (H.R.M.), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB FOR R1 TO 4

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C). No. 5262/2007

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

P1. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.24.1.2004 IN C.C.NO.8/2001 OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.9.6.2005 BY R2. P3. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.11.7.2005. P4. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C). NO. 24850/2005 OF THIS COURT. P5. COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DTD.27.12.2006. sdk+

///True copy///

P.A. to Judge

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

W.P.(C).No.5262 of 2007

¶26

==================

¶27

==================

¶28

Dated this the 14^th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T

¶29

At the time of filing of this writ petition, the petitioner was working as an Overseer in the Electrical Major Section of the Kerala State Electricity Board at Varappuzha. According to the petitioner, while working so, on 22.7.1999, the petitioner was suspended from service pending disciplinary action, on charges of accepting bribe. Criminal proceedings as well as departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case and found not guilty in the departmental enquiry. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was reinstated in service. But the petitioner was not paid service benefits for the period during which he was kept under suspension. Instead by Ext.P2 order, the said period was directed to be treated as eligible leave. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.(C).No.24850/2005, in which, this Court relegated the petitioner to the remedy by way of an appeal before the Board. Consequently, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by Ext.P5 order. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs;

¶30

“(i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Exts.P2 and P5 and quashing the same.

¶31

¶32

w.p.c.5262/07

¶33

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or other directing respondents 1 to 4 to grant the petitioner full pay and allowances and all other consequential benefits with effect from 22.07.1999 the date of suspension and treat the period of suspension of the petitioner.”

¶34

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3^rd respondent.

¶35

According to the 3^rd respondent, payment of service benefits for the time of suspension, on reinstatement, is not automatic. Only if the suspension was wholly unjustified, the question of paying service benefits for the period of suspension arises. For this proposition, the respondents rely on Rule 56B of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules read with the orders of the Board adopting the KSR for the employees of the Board. The 3^rd respondent submits that the petitioner was suspended from service on his being arrested in a criminal case on a charge of accepting bribe. At that time, the respondents had no option but to suspend the petitioner because of his arrest. It is subsequently the disciplinary proceedings were initiated on identical charges. Since the charges were the same in the disciplinary proceedings as well as criminal case, disciplinary proceedings were completed subsequent to the criminal case. In the criminal court judgment, which is Ext.P1, it is clear that the petitioner was not honourably acquitted, but was given the benefit due. According to the standing counsel for the Board, that would show that the petitioner was not honourably acquitted and therefore, the respondents were justified in denying the petitioner

¶36

¶37

w.p.c.5262/07

¶38

service benefits for the period of suspension, since the suspension was not wholly unjustified.

¶39

I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

¶40

The suspension of the petitioner was pursuant to his arrest

¶41

in the criminal case. As rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel for the Board, at that time the disciplinary authority had no option but to suspend the petitioner in view of the arrest in the criminal case. It could be said that since the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case giving the benefit of doubt, that cannot be treated as an honourable acquittal so as to make the suspension wholly unjustified. At the same time, it should be noted that the respondents themselves exonerated the petitioner in the departmental proceedings also. In such circumstances, it was incumbent on the disciplinary authority to give reasons as to why the petitioner should be denied service benefits for the period during which he was kept under suspension and to hold that the suspension was not wholly unjustified. But I find that such a consideration on the basis of the above said aspects in accordance with Rule 56B of Part I of the KSR has not been undertaken either by the disciplinary authority or by the appellate authority. I am of opinion that the disciplinary authority should first apply his mind as to whether the suspension is wholly unjustified so as to deny the entire service benefits for the period of suspension. He

¶42

w.p.c.5262/07 4

¶43

also has to consider whether the same is partly unjustified, in which case, the petitioner would be eligible for part of the service benefits. All these have to be specifically considered by the disciplinary authority applying his mind and entering specific findings in respect of the above aspects. Insofar as that has not been done in the impugned orders, the impugned orders are quashed. I direct the 4^th respondent-Chief Engineer to consider the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any part of the service benefits for the period of suspension and pass fresh orders in respect thereof, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶44

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶45

sdk+

¶46

Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶47

///True copy///

¶48

P.A. to Judge

P.K.Lakshmanan v. Senior Superintendent Transmission Circl

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Lakshmanan v. Senior Superintendent Transmission Circl

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sameer.T.E Vs M.Ramanunni

Pepsi Mohan Vs State of Kerala

K.K.Sabu Vs K.S.E.B and Another

B.Pankajakshi Amma Vs State of Kerala

The Commissioner of Customs and Others Vs a.P.Steel Re-Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd.

M/S. Altima Tours and Travels Pvt.Ltd. Vs Union of India & Another