Dismissed

P. Neelakanta Pillai v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC14 Oct 2016WP(C)/16525/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge held that the recovery of Rs.75,288/- for loss sustained by the Board could not be sustained due to lack of findings on the quantum of loss in the enquiry report. The recovery direction was set aside with liberty to recover the loss computed for specific consumers mentioned in the evidence.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P8 order to the extent it directs recovery of Rs.75288/- set aside; liberty to respondents to recover loss for two consumers after notice.

P. Neelakanta Pillai Vs Kerala State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/22ND ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 16525 of 2006 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

P.NEELAKANTA PILLAI, (ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RETIRED FROM KSEB, SUN REGIONAL STORE, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PALAI) RESIDING AT, PERUMBRAKUNNEL HOUSE, CHIRAKKADAVU EAST P.O. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE CHAIRMAN, K.S.E.B. VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, (HRM), K.S.E.B. VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

K.V.

¶16

WPC NO.16525 OF 2006:

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶19

P1: COPY OF THE MEMO CHARGES DATED 27.10.2001 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶20

P2: COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 5.12.2001.

¶21

P3: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 29.5.2003.

¶22

P4: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 21.8.2003 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶23

P5: COPY OF THE REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 30.9.2003.

¶24

P6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO EBVS.7/7/2001/309 DATED 9.2.2004 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶25

P7: COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 31.3.2004 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

P8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO VIG.BV111(B11)4369/01 DATED 13.1.2005 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.V.

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P.(C) No.16525 of 2006

¶33

Dated this the 14^th day of October, 2016

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

The petitioner challenges the punishment of barring of increment and recovery from pay, awarded to him, on the basis of the memo of charges issued to him on 27.10.2001. The petitioner retired from the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB for short) while working as Assistant Executive Engineer on 31.5.2005. By Ext.P1 memo of charges issued on 27.10.2001, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for the following charges:

¶36

Disconnection registers/ Meter reading registers and index registers were not maintained in proper form or order in Section Office.

¶37

Service connection agreements that were to be kept in your custody were scattered in the drawing branch without being properly stored.

¶38

3)Two meter changing registers were maintained simultaneously. One meter changing register having 150 pages was used only upto 4-8-2000 having 114 pages blank and another register was opened on 14-8-2000. A meter changed on 3-4-2001 of Cons. No.5836 is seen entered in the old register which shows that the meter changing records are not maintained properly.

¶39

4)You have exceeded your delegation of powers by cancelling and revising of additional bills to consumers such as Cons.

¶40

W.P.(C) No.16525 of 2006

¶41

¶42

No.720, 356 (Vandiperiyar) -Cons. No.3812, 529, 106, 1734 (Kumaly).

¶43

5) You have caused huge loss to the Board vide charge (4) above with the ulterior motive of receiving illegal gratification from the consumers.

¶44

6)You did not hand over the DB files and keys of shelf to Sri. Abdul Salam, Asst. Exe. Engineer to whom you had handed over charges. A lot of cases pending in several courts and CDRF could not be attended in time due to this act. A registered letter was issued to your home address to hand over the files and keys of the shelf to Sri. M. Abdul Salam, Asst. Exe. Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Peerumade but the same letter was received back in this office with the remark "unclaimed hence returned to sender". This shows the irresponsible attitude on your part.

¶45

(7) Being the Head of the office of a Major Section, you failed to co-operate the officers and staff under your control and failed to keep a harmoneous relationship with them.

¶46

The petitioner was asked to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him in terms of KSE Board Employees CC and A Regulations, 1969. Statement of allegation was annexed to the memo of charges. It was stated therein that in the preliminary enquiry conducted by the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Thodupuzha, it was seen that the petitioner who was working in the Electrical Major Section, Vandiperiyar as Assistant Executive Engineer had committed certain irregularities in connection with cancellation of additional bills. Explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory; since there were complaints regarding cancellation and revision of additional bills

¶47

W.P.(C) No.16525 of 2006

¶48

¶49

with illicit motive of receiving illegal gratification from the consumer, it was decided to take action against him. There was a complaint against the petitioner that he failed to coordinate the officers and staff under his control and to keep a harmonious relationship with them. The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P2 explanation denying the charges. He stated that he was not the custodian of the register mentioned in charges 1 and 2 and the subordinate officers were in charge of those duties. With respect to charge No.4 regarding the revision of bills, it was stated that the Assistant Executive Engineer is authorised to carry out the revision or adjustment of bills; he did not exceed his authority in carrying out the revision, which were provided in circular No.C(DS) EB3 Revenue 9-98 dated 25.9.1997. He submitted that he had not received any kind of gratification from any consumer and had acted only bonafide. Further he stated that the Assistant Executive Engineer had not sent any letter to him and he had already handed over the key of the shelf and connected records to the said Abdul Salam on 18.7.2007 itself. He further stated that he maintained full co-operation with all the members of the staff and maintained good relationship with them. An enquiry was conducted thereafter. The enquiry officer found that charge Nos.1, 2 and 3 were partially proved in evidence. With respect to charge No.4 it was stated that

¶50

W.P.(C) No.16525 of 2006

¶51

¶52

in the case of consumer No.3812 and consumer No.529, the petitioner exercised his delegated power in arbitrary manner and charge No.4 was proved in evidence.

¶53

Further charge Nos.5 and 6 also were found proved. Thereafter Ext.P4 notice was issued on 21.8.2003 by the Chief Manager (HRM) proposing to award a punishment of barring of next two increments with cumulative effect and to recover the sum of Rs.75,288/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand two hundred and eighty eight only) plus interest being the value of loss sustained to the Board due to discrepancies in the cancellation of additional bills at Electrical Major Section, Vandiperiayar. The petitioner was asked to show cause against the proposal to award the said punishment. Thereupon the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 explanation pointing out that there was no evidence to substantiate the charges and the finding of the enquiry officer was not on the basis of any legal evidence. Regarding charge No.4 the petitioner submitted that he did not exceed the delegation of powers in respect of cancelling and revising additional bills to consumer Nos.720 and 356 of Vandiperiyar and consumer Nos.3812, 529, 106 and 1734 of Kumily section and whatever he had done was in accordance with the circular issued on 25.9.1997 and he had forwarded the complaints relating to the additional bills/revision of bills to the subordinate

¶54

W.P.(C) No.16525 of 2006

¶55

¶56

officers for verification and report and it was only on the basis of the verification report from the Assistant Engineer and other staff that the revision was being effected. He also pointed out that the enquiry officer has discussed only about two consumers whereas the memo of charges was with respect to six consumers, pointing out the violation of section 38 of the Manual of Disciplinary Proceedings. He also pointed out that there was no evidence that the intermediary has paid any bribe to the petitioner. Regarding charge No.5, in which the allegation is that he had caused huge loss to the Board vide charge No.4, the petitioner submits that there was no evidence with respect to the said charge and the enquiry officer had not pointed out any specific case where cancellation/revision of additional bill was not warranted with reference to verification report and the loss caused to the Board. Therefore it was stated that the findings of the Enquiry Officer was without any material. The Chief Engineer thereafter passed Ext.P6 order, after referring to the entire records of the enquiry. It was found that the petitioner failed to consult the Assistant Engineer or Sub Engineer of the section before the cancellation/revision of additional bills and such cancellation/revision was made on the basis of the report of the Overseer. It was further found that such cancellation/revision were done after the same was included in the

¶57

W.P.(C) No.16525 of 2006

¶58

¶59

monthly accounts and the petitioner was not competent to withdraw the same without prior sanction from the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Kattappana. Accordingly the proposed punishment was confirmed and the petitioner was awarded the punishment of barring of two increments with cumulative effect and recovery of an amount of Rs.75,288/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand two hundred and eighty eight only) plus interest being the value of loss sustained by the Board. The petitioner submitted an appeal before the Chairman of the Board and the Chairman as per Ext.P8 order reduced the punishment to barring of one annual increment with cumulative effect for one year and to recovery of Rs.75,288/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand two hundred and eighty eight only) with interest being loss caused to the Board by the accused officer. The petitioner challenges Exts.P6 and P8 orders.

¶60

Respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that the punishment is awarded after conducting an enquiry in which the petitioner was given an opportunity to defend and after giving the show cause notice. It was stated that the findings were arrived at on the basis of evidence in the detailed enquiry.

¶61

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charges against the petitioner as well as the findings in the enquiry report and the punishment awarded are illegal and the petitioner is not

¶62

W.P.(C) No.16525 of 2006

¶63

¶64

liable to remit any amount to the Board and the Board is not entitled to recover any amount.

¶65

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated in accordance with the KSE Board Employees CC & A Regulations. The petitioner does not have a case that there was any procedural violation in conducting the enquiry. Even though there is statement that the enquiry was not conducted consistent with the principles of natural justice, it is stated that he was not given proper opportunity to defend the case. No material is placed on record how he was denied any opportunity to defend and how such opportunity was denied. One of the grounds alleged that even though there were allegations that the enquiry officer had considered the allegations with respect to two consumers alone and hence find that charge No.4 and based on it charge No.5 is found proved cannot be correct. With reference to the findings as to partially proved charges, the petitioner submits that those charges cannot be considered as proved. On consideration of the pleadings and contentions on either side, it is seen that the enquiry was conducted consistent with the principles of natural justice, after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to defend cannot be said that there is no evidence with respect to the charges alleged against the petitioner. Even though charges 1 to 3 and 7 are stated to have been found partially

¶66

W.P.(C) No.16525 of 2006

¶67

¶68

proved, charge Nos.4, 5 and 6 are found proved. It is only in case there is no evidence or there is any procedural violation that this court can interfere with disciplinary proceedings. Now coming to the punishment awarded, the appellate authority has reduced the punishment of barring of two increments with cumulative effect to that of barring of one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect.

¶69

Further question is regarding the recovery of Rs.75288/(Rupees Seventy five thousand two hundred and eighty eight only) which is said to be the loss sustained to the Board due to the discrepancies in the cancellation of additional bills at Electrical Major Section, Vandiperiyar. With respect to this punishment, the charges relating to the loss caused to the Board are those contained in charge No.5 which is in turn in relation to charge No.4 which are already extracted in the 2^nd paragraph of this judgment. When the Board has found that loss has caused on the basis of the action of the petitioner covered by charge No.4, it is to be noted that the enquiry officer has considered the case of two consumers in whose case there was cancellation/revision of additional bills whereas charge No.4 related to six consumers. The enquiry report does not refer to the amount covered by the bill or the loss caused on account of any of the consumers referred to in the memo of

¶70

W.P.(C) No.16525 of 2006

¶71

¶72

charges or with respect to the two consumers with nos.529 and 3812 whose case were considered in Ext.P3 report. There is no material with respect to the loss, in Ext.P4 show cause notice proposing punishment of recovery of the sum of Rs.75,288/(Rupees Seventy four thousand two hundred eighty eight only) plus interest is stated to be towards the value of loss sustained by the Board due to the discrepancies in cancellation/revision of additional bill. In the absence of any finding with respect to the quantum of loss in the enquiry, the petitioner cannot be saddled with the liability to compensate the Board to the tune of Rs.75,288/(Rupees Seventy five thousand two hundred and eighty eight only). There is no reference with respect to the loss covered by the additional bills which the petitioner revised/cancelled, even though there was a charge at serial No.5 with reference to the loss caused on account of charge No.4.

¶73

In the said circumstances, the punishment awarded ordering recovery of sum of Rs.75,288/- cannot be sustained. At any rate, since it was found that loss was caused on account of the revision/cancellation of additional bills with respect to two consumers, it will be open to the respondents to recover the amount covered by the bills in respect of those two consumers with no.529 and 3812. Hence Ext.P8 order to the extent it directs

¶74

W.P.(C) No.16525 of 2006

¶75

¶76

recovery of Rs.75288/- is set aside, with liberty to the respondents to recover the loss caused by cancellation/revision of additional bills issued to the 2 consumers referred to the inquiry report, after notice to the petitioner.

¶77

Sd/-

¶78

P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶79

rkc

P. Neelakanta Pillai v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Neelakanta Pillai 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

Padmini Bhai Vs Dr. K.v.Krishnadas

Nishad Vs v.Padmanabhan and Oriental Insurance

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Maheswary and Another

Mohanan Vs Asha Vigh

Subhadra Vs Government of Kerala

N.Pushparajan and Others Vs the District Collector, Civil Station