M MOHAN Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a retired employee of the 1st respondent Board. While in service the petitioner was suspended on 14.6.2005 pursuant to detection of alleged irregularities in usage of electrical energy at his domestic connection, in a surprise check conducted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau of the 1st respondent Board. Ext.P1 statement of allegations and memo of charges was issued with the following three specific charges:

(2.) THE 3rd respondent conducted an enquiry through the Assistant Executive Engineer. On the basis of the enquiry report the petitioner was exonerated from all the three charges, as per Ext.P3 order. In the meanwhile the 6th respondent herein, a private individual, had approached the Kerala Lokayukta alleging mal-administration on the part of officials of the 1st respondent Board in not proceeding with the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, even without issuing any notice to him, the Lokayukta had issued repeated orders directing the authorities to take stringent actions against the petitioner, on the premise that the petitioner had committed theft of energy. The 4th respondent had issued Ext.P4 notice to the petitioner calling upon him for a personal hearing on the basis of the directions issued by the Lokayukta. It is stated in Ext.P4 that the Lokayukta had directed the Board to consider the charges levelled against the petitioner in view of the report of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau and to pass fresh orders after conducting personal hearing. The petitioner submitted a written statement as per Ext.P5. However the 4th respondent decided to review Ext.P3 order by exercising powers under clause 35 of the Kerala State Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations. It was decided to reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly Ext.P6 order was issued stating that, after perusal of all the connected documents and after hearing the petitioner it is convinced that the petitioner had committed misuse of energy. The finding is to the effect that, the petitioner had committed misuse of energy supplied for agricultural purposes, for bathing of his milch cows. Conclusion is that, as per the prevailing orders bathing of cows can be treated as agricultural purpose only if there are more than 5 milch cows. The 2nd charge was found to be not sustainable. Since the 1st charge was proved the 4th respondent observed that the allegation of cheating the Board remains partly proved. On the basis of the above said findings, punishment was imposed barring one increment of the petitioner without cumulative effect. The period of suspension was directed to be treated as eligible leave.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent it is conceded that the disciplinary action was reopened only on the basis of observations made by the Lokayukta. According to the respondent it is only on the basis of the report of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau regarding misuse of energy for residential purpose, that the punishment was imposed. It is further stated that the power conferred under Regulation 35 was invoked because of the fact that the Lokayukta had termed Ext.P3 as an instance of mal administration. All other contentions raised by the petitioner against the impugned orders are refuted. The petitioner had filed a detailed reply affidavit and produced Ext.P11, copy of the enquiry report.