K.V. CHANDRAN Vs. CHAIRMAN, KSEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner retired from the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board as an Assistant Engineer on 28.5.2001. While he was in service, on 23.11.1995, he was suspended from service along with others for certain alleged irregularities. Subsequently, Ext.P6 memo of charges dated 31.5.1996 was issued to him. He submitted Ext.P7 reply to the same on 13.6.1996. Nothing was heard about the disciplinary proceedings thereafter. After the petitioner retired from service on 28.5.2001, the petitioner was served with Ext.P9 show cause notice dated 19.3.2003, wherein it was stated that in the enquiry report dated 8.4.1997 of the legal adviser and disciplinary enquiry officer, the petitioner was found guilty of charges against him and he was directed to show cause why the punishment of reduction in pension by 20% should not be imposed on him. The petitioner submitted Ext.P10 reply in which he raised, inter alia, a contention that he had not been served with a copy of the enquiry report so as to enable him to submit a meaningful reply. But without giving a copy of the enquiry report, Ext.P11 order has been passed imposing on the petitioner the punishment of reduction in pension by 20%. There was also a direction that an amount of Rs. 5,06,793/ - which has fixed as his personal liability be recovered by initiating civil proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner has filed Ext.P12 review petition before the Chairman of the Kerala State Electricity Board. At the time of filing the writ petition, that was still pending. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently that was disposed of reducing the punishment to reduction of 10% of the pension. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents seeking to justify their action. I am not going into the merits of the contentions regarding the guilt of the petitioner in respect of the allegations of misconduct against the petitioner, in so far as I am impressed by one particular contention raised by the petitioner to the effect that he has not been served with a copy of the enquiry report. In Ext.P10, the petitioner had specifically taken a contention that he had not been served with a copy of the enquiry report. The only answer in Ext.P11 is that the petitioner had not put forth any points worthy of the consideration against the findings in the report of the Legal Adviser and Disciplinary Enquiry Officer. There is no mention whatsoever as to whether the enquiry report was given to the petitioner or not. The counter affidavit is also silent on that question. I am of opinion that without the petitioner having been served with a copy of the enquiry report, he could not have filed any meaningful reply to the show cause notice. There is nothing on record to show that the same had been served on the petitioner. The disciplinary proceedings are liable to be quashed on that ground without going in to the other contentions. Accordingly, Ext.P11 order is quashed. The first respondent is directed to pass fresh orders in the matter, after serving a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner and hearing him on the same. The above exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All contentions of the petitioner are left open to be agitated, if it becomes necessary again.