Disposed

P.R.Gopalakrishnan v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC10 Dec 2014WP(C)/28166/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the Kerala High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by an employee against disciplinary proceedings involving suspension and punishment without expressing an opinion on merits. The court directed the respondent Board to consider the petitioner's review appeal with a hearing within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's review application within a period of three months after affording an opportunity of personal hearing.

P.R.Gopalakrishnan Vs Kerala State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 28166 of 2014 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

-----------------

¶8

P.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O P. RAGHAVAN NAIR, RETIRED SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, BEYPORE, NOW RESIDING AT SREE NANDANAM, OPPO. MILK SOCIETY, NEAR NALLUR MARKET, FEROKE P.O, KOZHIKODE 56

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶10

SRI.P.V.ANOOP

¶11

RESPONDENTS :

¶12

----------------------

¶13

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695004

¶14

2. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695004

¶15

3. CHIEF ENGINEER (DISTRIBUTION NORTH), VYDYUTHI BHAVAN KOZHIKODE 673032

¶16

4. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE 673032

¶17

5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVSION, FEROKE, NALLALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE 673027

¶18

6. CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695004

¶19

7. CHAIRMAN,

¶20

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695004

¶21

BY SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

WP(C).No. 28166 of 2014 (U)

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶27

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGE BEARING NO EBI/VIG/B1/72/07/2326 DATED 14-08-2007 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO RES/GNL/2006.07/25 DATED 29-04-2006 OF THE IST RESPONDENT

¶29

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER NO EBI/B1/72/07/3144 DATED 08-10-2007 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL MEMO OF CHARGE BEARING NO EBI/VIG/B1/72/07/3604 DATED 31-10-2007 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 13-11-2007 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶32

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEI/VIG/B1/72/07/4270 DATED 07-12-2007 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶33

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO EBI/VIG/B1/72/07/4703 DATED 03-01-2008 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶34

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BEARING NO EBI/VIG/B1/72/2007/265 DATED 14-08-2008 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶35

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 08-09-2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE EXT P8 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE.

¶36

EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO EBI/VIG/B1/72/07/4467 DATED 26-11-08 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶37

EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15-12-2008.

¶38

EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO GBI/DIS APPEAL SC/2008-09/3108 DATED 10-12-2009 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶39

EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHAIRMAN, KSEB, DATED 28-02-2009.

¶40

EXHIBIT P14: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO EBI/VIG/B1/72/07/3256 DATED 15-10-2009 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶41

EXHIBIT P15: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 20-01-2010 ISSUED BY HE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶42

EXHIBIT P16: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO EBBS 5/01-2009/373 DATED 20-04-2010 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶43

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

¶48

W.P.(C)No.28166 of 2014 U

¶49

Dated this the 10^th day of December, 2014

¶50

JUDGMENT

¶51

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.

¶52

Briefly stated, the petitioner, an Engineer working in the respondent Board, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings, which eventually culminated in Exhibit P10 order of the fourth respondent. In fact, punishment of barring of one increment with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner, apart from treating the period of suspension as out of duty. Later, in an appeal preferred against Exhibit P10, the appellate authority, through Exhibit P14 order, modified the punishment barring the increment without cumulative effect. Though the petitioner further filed a revision before the Chairman of the respondent

¶53

WPC 28166/14

¶54

¶55

Board, the Chief Engineer, instead of the Chairman, confirmed the modified punishment as was imposed by the appellate authority through Exhibit P14. Under those circumstances, the petitioner is said to have submitted Exhibit P17 review, though styled as appeal, before the first respondent. The petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of Exhibit P17 review.

¶56

In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Baord, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider Exhibit P17 review of the petitioner in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶57

Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge

¶58

tkv

P.R.Gopalakrishnan v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.R.Gopalakrishnan v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sooraj.v. Vs State of Kerala

P.N.Krishnan Vs Additional Divisional Railway Manager

Haripriya K.S Vs the State of Kerala

Jose Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Geetha P Vs State of Kerala

Nidhin v. Vs the Corporate Manager