KUTTAPPAN NAIR Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P(C) No.6447/2015 has instituted this intra court appeal under Sec.5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, so as to impugn the judgment dated 19-06-2019 rendered by the learned Single Judge in that W.P(C), whereby the main pleas sought for by the appellant/petitioner in W.P(C) herein for treating the period of suspension from service as duty, for all purposes including full pay and allowances, etc, have been rejected.

(2.) Heard Sri.Peeyus.A.Kottam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner in the W.P(C) and Sri.Asok.M.Cherian, learned Standing Counsel for Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) appearing for respondents in the W.A/respondents in the W.P(C).

(3.) The appellant/petitioner, while working as Lineman at the Electrical Major Section, Koothattukulam of the KSEB, was arrested by the Vigilance Police authorities concerned, viz, Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB), Ernakulam, on the allegations that he has accepted bribe from a consumer for allegedly reducing the bill amount, etc. Thereupon, he was placed under suspension from service by orders of the Executive Engineer concerned as per proceedings dated October 2001. The sanction for prosecuting him in terms of the provisions contained in the Prevention of Corruption of Act was also duly obtained as per office proceedings dated 20-12-2002. Later, the appellant was reinstated in service as per order dated 07-03-2003. Subsequently, the appellant faced trail before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Thrissur in the Calendar Case concerned viz, C.C No.12/2003 and the said criminal court as per judgment dated 30-03-2006 in C.C No.12/2003, wherein it has been found that no evidence has been brought out to substantiate the charge against the accused that he had demanded and accepted bribe from PW-2 to reduce the electricity bill and for the reconnection of his electric connection and that accordingly, the petitioner was acquitted of the alleged offences in terms of Secs.7, 13(1)(d) r/w Sec.13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In this connection, it is brought to our notice that the main Prosecution Witness, PW2, from whom the bribe was alleged to have been received by the accused had turned hostile.