Retired petitioner challenged a 1996 punishment order via writ petition, claiming belated discovery of earlier documents refuting misconduct. Court found proceedings were finally concluded by a previous judgment and dismissed petition as no ground for reopening existed.
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 P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/19TH AGRAHAYANA 1934
WP(C).No. 25466 of 2012 (G)
PETITIONER:
T.C.JOSE,, AGED 71 YEARS, RETGIRED ENGINEER (CIVIL), S/O CHERIAKUUTY, THOPPIL HOUSE, MANALUR VILLAGE (POST), THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR
RESPONDENT:
-------------KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) 25466/12
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXTS.:
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 4.1.1996 IMPOSING PUNISHMENT UPON THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P2: TRUECOPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WRIT APPEAL NO.2780 OF 2007 DATED 12.3.2010.
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED NIL TO THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KOZHIKODE.
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE BOND EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER DATED 21.12.2976 TO THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER.
EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW APPLICATION DATED 9.8.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXTS.: NIL.
Srd
(True copy)
P.A.to Judge.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
W.P.(c) No.25466 OF 2012
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who retired from the service of the Electricity Board as early as in the year 1996, after suffering the punishment pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings taken against him, which in turn has become final as per Ext.P2 judgment passed in W.A.No. 2780/2007, is again before this Court nearly after 17 years from the date of arising the cause of action, contending that the basis for insinuation leading to the disciplinary proceedings is not correct, in so far as the petitioner had actually furnished the necessary bond, as borne by Ext.P4 and had also submitted the application for leave, as referred to in Ext.P5. This being the position, the grounds on which Ext.P1 punishment order was passed on 4.1.1996 for the unauthorised absence with effect from 1.7.1983 FN. and for not having executed the necessary bond in connection with the LWA is stated as not correct or sustainable and requires to be reconsidered.
W.P.(C)No.25466/2012 2
petitioner joined the service of the respondent Board as Assistant
Engineer in the year 1963 and later came to be promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer. In connection with the alleged misconduct of unauthorised absence and non-furnishing of bond, he was demoted to the post of Assistant Engineer, as per Ext.P1 order dated 4.1.1996. Though the petitioner challenged the same by way of writ petition before this Court, it did not turn to be fruitful and the appeal preferred therefrom also came to be dismissed as per Ext.P2 judgment. It was thereafter, that the petitioner was summoned to the office of the concerned respondent in connection with the steps for reconstructing his service book, which was missing. In the course of said proceedings, it came to the notice of the petitioner that the file very much contained the 'bond' given by the petitioner way back in the year 1976 and also that the submission of the application for leave was borne out from Exts.P4 and P5 respectively. Had it been traced out earlier, there could not have been any punishment by way of Ext.P1 and hence the petitioner seeks for a direction to consider Ext.P6
W.P.(C)No.25466/2012 3
representation and to pass appropriate orders for reviewing the punishment ordered by the Board.
for imposing Ext.P1 punishment. The specific instances of misconduct referred to in Ext.P1 order as 'i and ii' read as follows :
The learned Standing Counsel submits that, Ext.P4 indemnity bond was furnished by the petitioner in a different context, as he wanted to have 'NOC' for securing a passport to leave India and further that Ext.P5 refers to a leave application, which was submitted prior to the date of Ext.P5 i.e. 21.12.1976. The petitioner has been proceeded
W.P.(C)No.25466/2012 4
against in respect of the misconduct of unauthorised absence with effect from 1.7.1983 F.N. and also with regard to the non-execution of the bond in connection with the L.W.A for a period of three years with effect from 1.7.1980 F.N. to 30.06.1983 A.N., whereas Ext.P4 bond dated 1.2.1977 is in respect of something else.
In the said circumstances, this Court finds that nothing survives for adjudication at the hands of this Court. The idea and understanding of the petitioner is quite wrong and misconceived. Absolutely no
W.P.(C)No.25466/2012
5
tenable ground is raised in the writ petition to call for interference, invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE
sv.
W.P.(C)No.25466/2012 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere in a disciplinary matter involving a retired employee where the issue has already attained finality in a previous appeal.
Whether the documents submitted belatedly by the petitioner establish a valid ground to reopen a concluded disciplinary proceeding.
T.C.Jose
Kerala State Electricity Board
P.R. Ramachandra Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
