C V THOMAS Vs. K S E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the same in both the writ petitions. O. P. No. 12562/1997 concerns the challenge against the disciplinary proceedings culminating in Ext, P10 order. O.P. No. 30476/2002 relates to the claim for payment of pensionary benefits like gratuity and other amounts in the pay scale of Senior Superintendent,

(2.) The petitioner was working as Asst. Storekeeper in Angamaly and while so, he was transferred to Palai as per order dated 29-5-1984 of the third respondent. He was relieved on the forenoon of 1-6-1984 as per order dated 1-6-1984 of the Executive Engineer, Transmission Stores Division, Angamaly with a direction to join at Palai immediately. Therefore, he was relieved and then joined at Palai. After he was relieved, the Executive Engineer and Asst. Executive Engineer, Transmission Store Division, Angamaly had assumed charge of all the materials kept in the Store at Angamaly which were in the custody of the petitioner prior to his transfer from that centre. Later, he was called back and was asked to verify the materials at Angamaly pursuant to which, the said process was undertaken between 18-6-1984 to 4-8-1984. After that, he returned to Palai. He was issued with Ext. P1 memo of charges dated 10-7-1985. The two charges were: (i) failed to handover charge of the transmission stores at Angamaly promptly and properly; and (ii) misappropriated materials of the Electricity Board valuing to Rs. 1,93,630.39 as detailed in the statement attached. This was replied by the petitioner as per Ext. P2. The enquiry was conducted by the Law Officer of the Board in the cadre of District Judge. Ext. P3 is the report of the enquiry wherein he was exonerated of the charges. This report is dated 1-4-1987. Three years later, he was issued a show cause notice dated 17-3-1990 by the disciplinary authority, who has chosen to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer and entered a finding that the petitioner is guilty of the charges levelled against him. The penalties of reversion to the post of Junior Assistant for a period of three years and recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,93,630.39 fixed as liability on account of the misappropriation of materials, were proposed. The petitioner submitted a reply as per Ext. P5. In the reply, the petitioner apart from denying his liability, pointed out that when the disciplinary authority has chosen to differ from the findings of the enquiry officer, that can only be based on the analysis of the materials on record of the enquiry and the show cause notice does not disclose real appreciation of the evidence on record. It was also pointed out that the reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer are not disclosed in the show cause notice with reference to the oral and documentary evidence. Again four years later, by Ext. P6 a fresh show cause notice was issued with the only difference that the amount of liability has come down to Rs. 73,083. This apparently is after deducting the value of materials found excess, viz., Rs. 45,585. Ext. P7 is the reply submitted by the petitioner. Finally, by Ext. P8, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of reversion to the post of Junior Assistant for a period of three years and fixation of liability to the tune of Rs. 73,083. He filed appeal against the same before the Chairman evidenced by Ext. P9. The said appeal was rejected as per Ext. P10. The punishment of reversion was confirmed but the liability was refixed to Rs. 40,076-75. The petitioner is challenging the orders imposing penalty and the order passed in appeal.

(3.) The Board has filed a counter affidavit explaining the circumstances under which the punishment was imposed. .