DAMODARAN P. Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was removed from service consequent to his conviction, filed this writ petition seeking a direction to re-instate him as Electricity Worker (Mazdoor) with full service benefits treating the period of his absence as duty for all purposes.

(2.) The petitioner was working as a Lineman on contract basis under the 1st respondent from March, 2002 onwards in terms of Ext.P1 contract executed between him and the Assistant Engineer. While so on 20.5.2003, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau arrested him in a trap on the basis of a complaint that he demanded illegal gratification of a sum of Rs.750.00, from one Smt.Devaki Amma for providing new domestic connection to her house. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had appeared for a test for appointment as Electricity worker conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission. He was accordingly appointed as Electricity Worker (Mazdoor) as per Ext.P3 order dated 25.05.2004 based on advice memo dated 15.02004 of the PSC. The Vigilance case registered against him culminated in his conviction by the judgment dated 27.02010 in C.C.No.30 of 2004, for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for each of the offences. The petitioner thereafter filed Crl.Appeal No.486 of 2010. As per Ext.P4 order dated 09.03.2010 in Crl.M.Appl.2493 of 2010, the sentence was suspended. While so, the respondents issued Ext.P5 show cause notice proposing termination of his services, on the basis of the conviction. He submitted Ext.P6 explanation. By Ext.P7 letter dated 31.10.2011, the Chief Engineer (HRM) instructed the Deputy Chief Engineer to remove the petitioner from service. Consequent to this, Ext.P8 order was passed on 27.11.2011 removing him from service.

(3.) Thereafter Criminal Appeal No.486 of 2010 was allowed and the petitioner was honourably acquitted, as per Ext.P9 judgment dated 09.06.2016. On an analysis of the evidence on record, this court found that the sum of Rs.750.00 alleged to have been received by the appellant was not an illegal gratification, on the other hand, it was legal remuneration towards wages of the 3 labourers, which the consumer had handed over to the appellant, who was the concerned lineman, in the absence of the Sub Engineer. This court found that there was no evidence regarding the element of demand from the part of the appellant and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the demand and the offences were not made out. Therefore, this Court held that the conviction and sentence passed by the court below has resulted in substantial miscarriage of justice and it was also held that the petitioner was entitled to have an honourable acquittal in the matter as follows: