N MURALEEDHARAN Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board and he retired from service on 31/5/2003. At a time when he was working as a Senior Assistant, he was faced with a disciplinary action pursuant to Exhibit P1 charge sheet dated 5/7/94. Subsequently an enquiry officer was appointed on 24/4/01 and the enquiry officer submitted his report on 19/4/02. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued on 17/6/2002, Exhibit P3 produced in the case, to show cause as to why a penalty of reduction in the rank to the post of Junior Assistant temporarily for a period of six months be not imposed on the petitioner. Though the petitioner submitted a reply thereto, ultimately the authorities were not convinced of the objections and finally imposed the punishment by Exhibit P5 dated 16/11/2002 which was however implemented by Exhibit P8 order dated 13/12/2002. Exhibit P8 reads that "the petitioner working as Senior assistant in Divisional Office is hereby informed that he is reverted as Junior Assistant from 1/12/2002 as directed in the order dated 16/11/2002 (Exhibit P5). His pay and allowances from the above date will be regulated accordingly." Petitioner retired on 31/5/2003 while undergoing the punishment. As per Exhibit P5 order, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is as follows:

(2.) Prior to Exhibit P5, a show cause notice was issued which is Exhibit P3 and the last paragraph to the show cause notice reads as follows:

(3.) Thus what was proposed as punishment is a reversion for six months temporarily for which alone a show cause notice was issued and eventually he was also imposed with the punishment of reversion for a period of six months. The inordinate delay on the part of the authorities in completing the enquiry proceedings and imposing the punishment has resulted in the petitioner retiring while undergoing the punishment. If he had been imposed the punishment earlier, there cannot be any doubt that his position as Senior Assistant would have been restored to him on completion of the period of six months punishment as Junior Assistant since the reversion is only temporary for a period of six months. Therefore on completion of the period of six months, the petitioner is entitled to be put back in the same position as Senior Assistant and he would have retired as Senior Assistant. The punishment cannot therefore have the effect of imposing double punishment on the petitioner and if the authorities refuses the pensionary benefit reckoning the emoluments as is applicable to a Senior Assistant, virtually the punishment imposed will be punishment of reversion as Junior Assistant permanently which is not done in this case. If so, on completion of the six months period of punishment, the petitioner will be entitled for the pensionary benefits recomputed on the basis of the pay as he would have drawn in the post of Senior Assistant. Therefore with effect from 1/06/03 the petitioner's pension will be recomputed on the basis of the last drawn pay as he would have drawn as Senior Assistant and pay the same accordingly.