M. MOHANAN Vs. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 5. No one appeared for 6th respondent.

(2.) THE appellant who is the writ petitioner filed this writ appeal being aggrieved of only a part of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 02.07.2012 in W.P.(C). No. 16057 of 2008, in so far as the learned Single Judge has upheld the findings in the impugned orders regarding regularization of the period of suspension. The appellant who was working as an overseer was proceeded with disciplinary enquiry and by Ext.P3 order dated 01.03.2006, he was exonerated from the charges levelled against him. The relevant portion of the said order as contained in last paragraph is extracted as under:

(3.) THE petitioner submitted an appeal before the Chief Engineer which was rejected. Thereupon he submitted a review petition before the second respondent who passed a totally non speaking order and thereafter the petitioner/appellant approached the first respondent requesting to reduce the punishment. It was considered by the Board and Ext.P10 order was passed confirming the decision of the 2nd respondent. Being aggrieved of this petitioner/appellant filed the writ petition challenging order of the Deputy Chief Engineer awarding punishment as well as subsequent orders. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, setting aside Exts. P6, P8, P9 and P10 orders. However, the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition made the following observations: