SIBI THOMAS Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner alleging six separate charges. Two of the charges related to delay in forwarding of bills, while two other charges related to acts of dereliction of duty and two others related to demand and acceptance of bribe. The enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of charges of delay in forwarding bills and dereliction of duty. Charges for alleged demand and acceptance of bribe was found in favour of the petitioner and he was exonerated from those charges. Though a punishment of barring of two increments was proposed, pursuant to the reply notice submitted by the petitioner, by Ext.P8, a lenient view was taken and barring of only one increment with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner by the 3 rd respondent. In appeal by Ext.P10 order, the 2 nd respondent rejected petitioner's appeal. The petitioner challenges the said orders imposing punishment of barring one increment with cumulative effect against him.

(2.) Petitioner is an Assistant Executive Engineer with KSEB. While so, according to him, on the basis of anonymous complaints, proceedings were initiated against him after placing him under suspension. Even though a disciplinary proceeding was conducted, by Ext.P6 report, the enquiry officer came to a wrong conclusion that petitioner was guilty of four out of the six charges levelled against him. Petitioner contends that the findings entered into in Ext.P6, which are prejudicial to him are totally without any basis or evidence. Petitioner thus challenges Ext.P6 enquiry report along with the orders imposing punishment upon him which are produced as Ext.P8 and Ext.P10.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that the petitioner was reported to have committed grave irregularities and misconduct and the bills of the specific works which were delayed was specified in the memo of charges and enquiry was conducted only after his explanations were found to be unsatisfactory. It was also stated that the delay in forwarding bills could not have been caused by a responsible officer and the same were proved in the enquiry proceedings. In fact, since the allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe had not been proved and the enquiry officer himself had found the petitioner not guilty of the said two charges it was pleaded that, that itself shows fairness in the enquiry conducted. Referring to the minimal punishment imposed respondents pleaded that no serious prejudice is caused to the petitioner.