T C BOSE Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a Cashier in the Kerala State Electricity Board. He was suspended from service pending enquiry into the allegations of criminal misappropriation of the funds of the Board. That was on March 1, 1985. He was also simultaneously prosecuted in C. C. No. 567 of 1983 for offences punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thodupuzha. The Magistrate convicted him. He filed an appeal against the conviction and sentence before the Court of the Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha and obtained an order to stay of the sentence. The respondent, however, passed exhibit P-1 order on May 21, 1985, dismissing the petitioner from service in view of his conviction on a criminal charge under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner submits that exhibit P-1 order is illegal and is liable to be vacated.

(2.) THE ground urged by Counsel for the petitioner is that exhibit P-1 order ought to have been preceded by a notice to show cause and enquiry conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders. Reference is made to Clause 21 (xxiii) of the Standing Orders to the effect that conviction in any Court of law for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude and upon being sentenced to imprisonment as a punishment constitutes a misconduct. Reference is also made to Clause 24 of the Standing Orders prescribing procedure to be followed in disciplinary cases. According to that clause, the misconduct can be found only after conducting an enquiry in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Standing Orders. Reference is also made to Clause 26 of the Standing Orders to the effect that: " (i) The service of any workman with not less than one year of continuous service shall not be dispensed with except for reasonable cause and without giving such workman one month's notice or wages in lieu of such notice. " Counsel submits that these procedural safeguards have not been complied with in issuing exhibit P-1 order dismissing the petitioner from service. He, therefore, submits that exhibit P-1 is illegal apart from being violative of the principles of natural justice. He also refers to circular No. EBl/11 944/71 dated February 25, 1972, to the effect that the Standing Orders "will supersede all the previous orders which are not in conformity with the Standing Orders". Counsel also relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in U. P. State Electricity Board v. Hari Shankar Jain (1978-II-LLJ-399), to the effect that Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, which is special law in regard to service conditions, will prevail and regulations made by the Electricity Board in such matters are of no effect unless such regulations are notified by the Government under Section 13-B or certified by the Certifying Officer under Section 5 of the industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner was suspended from service pending enquiry on March 1, 1985. The subject-matter of the enquiry was a misconduct of having been involved in the criminal proceedings which resulted in his conviction by a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thodu-puzha, in, C. C. No. 567 of 1983. The petitioner has no case that his conviction on a criminal charge involving moral turpitude is not a misconduct. It is agreed that his appeal from the judgment of the Magistrate has been dismissed by the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. Counsel submits that he has filed a revision petition before this Court and the same is pending. In the light of these facts, it cannot be disputed that exhibit P-1 order imposed a penalty for a misconduct.