Quashed

Joseph Froid Peraira v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC9 Mar 2018WP(C)/7049/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed an order by the Appellate Authority rejecting an appeal against the petitioner's removal. The judgment directed the authority to reconsider the appeal in light of previous directions, ensuring specific grounds raised by the petitioner regarding the evidence were properly addressed before abandoning his services.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P14 order is quashed with direction to the 2nd respondent to pass orders afresh within one month of receipt of the judgment, ensuring the appeal is reconsidered with reference to the petitioner's

Joseph Froid Peraira Vs the Kerala State Electricity… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 7049 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

JOSEPH FROID PERAIRA, AGED 41 YEARS, SON OF LATE FRANCIS PERAIRA, OVERSEER (REMOVED FROM SERVICE), 66 KV SUB STATION, NJARAKKAL, VYPIN, UNDER TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KALAMASSERY, RESIDING AT KALAVARAMPARAMBIL, 44/1074/B/5, N.KALOOR, POTTAKUZHY, KOCHI 682 017.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.S.M.PRASANTH SRI.G.RENJITH SMT.R.S.ASWINI SANKAR SRI.T.H.ARAVIND

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, PATTAM PALACE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶11

2. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, PATTOM PALACE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.

¶12

3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, PATTAM PALACE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.

¶13

4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (DISTRIBUTION CENTRAL), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 011.

¶14

5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 018.

¶15

BY ADV. SMT.ANEETHA A.G., S.C

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Msd.

¶18

15.03.2018

¶19

WP(C).No. 7049 of 2018 (E)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 196.12.2006 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 12.01.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE MEMO OF CHARGES.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 04.06.2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 11.09.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 26.07.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KSEB.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER IN AN ENQUIRY AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 07.11.2014 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM).
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 10.12.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 06.08.2015 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF PROGRESS REPORT OF SRI. BIJURAJ, ASSISTANT ENGINEER.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF PROGRESS REPORT OF SRI. K.SURESH, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF LEGAL OPINION GIVEN BY THE SENIOR LAW OFFICER OF KSEB.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 14.11.2017 IN W.P.(C)NO. 27655/2015.
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB.
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY OF ARGUMENT NOTES DATED 20.12.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY.
RESPONDENT(S)'	EXHIBITS : NIL

¶23

//TRUE COPY//

¶24

P.S.TO JUDGE Msd. 15.03.2018

¶25

P.V.ASHA, J.

¶26

W.P.(C) No.7049 of 2018

¶27

Dated this the 9^th day of March, 2018

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioner, who was removed from service while working as Overseer as per Ext.P7 order, had filed an appeal Ext.P8 which was rejected as per Ext.P9 order. The petitioner had filed WP(C) No.27655 of 2015 challenging Ext.P9 order. By Ext.P13 judgment dated 14.11.2017 this Court directed that the 2^nd respondent shall reconsider Ext.P8 appeal preferred by the petitioner as against Ext.P7 order imposing penalty by specifically considering the case of the petitioner that no guilt could be established as against him on the basis of the records produced and the materials marked in the enquiry.

¶30

Ext.P14 order is passed thereafter by the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent has only stated that on detailed examination of the case it was observed that charges leveled against the petitioner for abetting theft of electricity are grave in nature warranting major punishment; Anti Power Theft Squad detected the theft during their inspection and recorded the statements of accused officials and respective consumers; both the petitioner and the co-accused did not deny their involvement when the theft of electricity was detected by the Anti Power Theft Squad; the self statements of accused officials reveal that they had arranged the theft; being the employee of the

¶31

W.P.(C) No.7049/18

¶32

:2:

¶33

Board, the petitioner had indulged in grave offense of theft of energy at various consumers premises for undue benefit to him, which was proved both in preliminary enquiry and departmental enquiry. It was further stated that the departmental disciplinary action was conducted in accordance with the rules, regulations and strictly following the principles of natural justice; ample opportunity was given to the accused officials to prove their innocence and that the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of 'removal' from service after having satisfied that grave charges leveled against them are proved beyond, doubt.

¶34

But while stating this, the appellate authority did not explain how it arrived at the conclusion. Ext.P9 order was set aside when this court found that Ext.P9 order of the appellate authority was rendered without considering the grounds specifically raised by the petitioner in Ext.P8 appeal against the enquiry report and that the appellate authority ought to have considered those grounds with reference to the records of the enquiry and should have come to a conclusion as to whether the findings of guilt as against the petitioner stood established based on materials which were marked in the enquiry and which were put to the petitioner.

¶35

Even though petitioner was heard afresh, Ext.P14 order does

¶36

W.P.(C) No.7049/18

¶37

:3:

¶38

not reflect any such consideration as directed in Ext.P13 judgment. Therefore I am of the view that Ext.P14 order requires a re-look. Hence Ext.P14 order is quashed. There shall be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to pass orders afresh, after reconsidering the appeal submitted by petitioner, in tune with the observations in Ext.P13 judgment and with reference to the contentions raised by the petitioner in the appeal, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶39

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶42

rkc

Joseph Froid Peraira v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Froid Peraira v. the 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deenamma Y. Vs the Director of Municipal Administration

Binilkumar Vs Union of India

K. Cheriyakoya Vs Administrator Utl

Sheeja K. Vs a.Shajahan

Roopkumar G Vs the Director General

K.V. Suma Vs the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board