C.L.MARY Vs. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, is presently working as an Executive Engineer in the Kerala Water Authority. He had joined the services of the respondent Water Authority as an Assistant Engineer, with effect from 22.05.1986. He was, thereafter, promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer, with effect from July 1997. In 2003, while working as an Assistant Executive Engineer, the petitioner was given charge of one of the zones of a project for drinking water, that was undertaken by the respondent Authority in Mattanchery. It is the case of the petitioner that, the work assigned to her was completed in record time and well before the scheduled completion date. While so, based on a complaint preferred by a trade union leader, and an investigation that followed, two vigilance cases were registered against the petitioner in the year 2003. The final reports in the said vigilance cases (CC No.1/2007 and CC No.21/2007), were filed before the Vigilance Court, Thrissur, in the year 2007. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The suspension was subsequently revoked and the petitioner reinstated in service. It needs to be noted that, notwithstanding the fact that there was no stay against the initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner, the respondent Water Authority did not initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner through the issuance of any memo or charge sheet. The only proceedings that were pending against the petitioner were the proceedings before the Vigilance Court Thrissur, as noted above. The said cases have now been transferred to the Vigilance Court, Muvattupuzha. It is also on record that pursuant to the judgment dated 28.06.2016 of this Court in Crl.R.P. No.1116/2014, the special court in Muvattupuzha has been directed to take steps to dispose the aforementioned vigilance cases, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the records from the court below.

(2.) It would appear that, with effect from 09.04.2010, the petitioner was provisionally promoted as Executive Engineer. In the order promoting the petitioner as Executive Engineer, it was clearly indicated that in Kerala Water Authority, the DPC had not yet been constituted, and in order to avoid administrative inconvenience due to the delay in clearing the promotion to Executive Engineers through DPC, various promotions and postings of Executive Engineers were directed with immediate effect, subject to clearance by the DPC as per rules. The promotion order made it clear that all the promotions were purely provisional under Rule 31(a)(1) of the KS &SSR and subject to the condition that all provisions of Rule 28(b) of KS & SSR will be satisfied subsequently including the clearance of their names for promotion by DPC and finalisation of seniority list. The DPC, that was to be constituted, was eventually constituted on 04.06.2010. Immediately thereafter, the newly constituted DPC reviewed the provisional promotion orders effected on 09.04.2010. Taking note of the vigilance cases that were pending against the petitioner, the respondent Water Authority issued a memo dated 25.09.2010 to the petitioner, proposing to supercede the petitioner in the preparation of the select list of officers fit for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. On receipt of the said memo(Ext.P5), the petitioner, challenged the same in W.P.(C) No.10935/2011, in which by an interim order dated 05.04.2011, this Court ordered a stay of the proposed reversion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. It is on the strength of the interim order so passed by this Court, that the petitioner is continuing in the services of the respondent Water Authority as Executive Engineer, even today.

(3.) On 06.03.2012, the petitioner was granted a grade promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. The said grade promotion was, however, subsequently cancelled by an order dated 26.09.2015. The petitioner was also not granted increments that were due from time to time and further, her candidature was not considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. This led the petitioner to approach this Court through W.P.(C).No.28392/2014, which was disposed by judgment dated 29.10.2014 (produced as Ext.P13 in W.P. (C).No.10631/2015), whereby, this Court directed the respondent Water Authority to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. By an order dated 11.02.2015, passed pursuant to the directions in Ext.P13 judgment, the Managing director of the respondent Water authority found that, the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer could not be considered, since the issue of promotion of the petitioner as Executive Engineer itself was pending finalisation. In W.P.(C). No.10631/2015, the said order of the Managing Director dated 11.02.2015 (produced as Ext.P15 in the writ petition) is impugned. It needs to be mentioned at this stage that, immediately after the petitioner was reinstated after suspension, the respondent Water Authority, while reinstating the petitioner by the order dated 30.12.2012, also directed that the petitioner should be posted only in non-sensitive posts, outside Ernakulam District, pending disposal of the vigilance cases against her. This order dated 30.12.2012 is produced as Ext.P1, and is impugned in W.P.(C).No.18933/2012, wherein, the ground of challenge is essentially that there was no justification for the direction in the reinstatement order requiring the petitioner to be posted in a non-sensitive post, outside Ernakulam District.