Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ALEXANDER THOMAS, K. BABU, JJ.
Kuttappan Nair S/o Kesavan Nair – Appellant
Versus
Kerala State Electricity Board, Rep. by its Secretary – Respondent
W.A. No. 2106 of 2019
Decided On : 09-03-2021
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 13 – Kerala High Court Act – Section 5 – Order of suspension – Unsuccessful petitioner in W.P. (C) has instituted this intra court appeal under Section 5(i) of Kerala High Court Act, so as to impugn the judgment rendered by Single Judge in that W.P. (C) whereby the main pleas sought for by the appellant/petitioner in W.P. (C) herein for treating the period of suspension from service as duty, for all purposes including full pay and allowances, etc, have been rejected
Finding of the court: Petitioner had retired from service as early as on 31-03-2003. – Entire suspension period from 19-01-2001 up to 14-03-2003 is long before the coming into force of the said amended provisions of Rule 26, which has coming into force prospectively only on 05-11-2009. – Hence in the instant case, the amended provision of Rule 26 as it existed in statute book prior to 05-11-2009 would squarely cover the case of the petitioner. – Hence it is only to be ordered that, the said LWA period of 351 days from 29-03-2002 to 14-03-2003 shall count as qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pension. – In order to remove any ambiguity we also order that the entire period of suspension from service viz. 19-10-2001 up to 14-03-2003, shall be treated as service for the purpose of pensionary benefits in the case of the petitioner. – Impugned order at Exts.P1 and P5 will stand modified to the limited extent as above. – It is ordered that in case the petitioner's pensionary benefits have been sanctioned and disbursed on the premise that the said period in question shall not count for qualifying service for pension, etc, then the competent authority of the respondents will immediately sanction revised pensionary benefits due to the petitioner by reckoning the said period as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and the differential amount by way of arrears of pension, gratuity, etc. should be paid to the petitioner without any further delay, at any rate, within an outer time limit of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment – Upshot of the above discussion is that main reasonings and conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge in the instant writ proceedings are not liable for any interdiction at the hands of the appellate court. – Directions and orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment in W.P. (C) in this case will stand modified to the limited extent as above
Result: Writ Appeal Disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
1. The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 6447/2015 has instituted this intra court appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, so as to impugn the judgment dated 19-06-2019 rendered by the learned Single Judge in that W.P. (C) whereby the main pleas sought for by the appellant/petitioner in W.P. (C) herein for treating the period of suspension from service as duty, for all purposes including full pay and allowances, etc, have been rejected.
2. Heard Sri. Peeyus A. Kottam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner in the W.P. (C) and Sri. Asok M. Cherian, learned Standing Counsel for Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) appearing for respondents in the WA/respondents in the W.P. (C).
3. The appellant/petitioner, while working as Lineman at the Electrical Major Section, Koothattukulam of the KSEB, was arrested by the Vigilance Police authorities concerned, viz. Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB), Ernakulam, on the allegations that he has accepted bribe from a consumer for allegedly reducing the bill amount, etc. Thereupon, he was placed under suspension from service by orders of the Executive Engineer concerned as per proceedings dated October 2001. The sanction for prosecuting him in terms of the provisions contained in the Prevention of Corruption of Act was also duly obtained as per office proceedings dated 20-12-2002. Later, the appellant was reinstated in service as per order dated 07-03-2003. Subsequently, the appellant faced trail before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur in the Calendar Case concerned viz. C.C No. 12/2003 and the said criminal court as per judgment dated 30-03-2006 in C.C No. 12/2003, wherein it has been found that no evidence has been brought out to substantiate the charge against the accused that he had demanded and accepted bribe from PW-2 to reduce the electricity bill and for the reconnection of his electric connection and that accordingly, the petitioner was acquitted of the alleged offences in terms of Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In this connection, it is brought to our notice that the main Prosecution Witness, PW-2, from whom the bribe was alleged to have been received by the accused had turned hostile.
4. After the pronouncement of the judgment dated 30-03-2006 by the court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur in C.C No. 12/2003, the competent authority of the Board had issued Ext.P1 proceedings dated 29-08-2006, wherein it has ordered that so as to regularise with period during which the petitioner had remained under suspension from service viz. period from 19-10-2001 to 14-03-2003, the Board has ordered in Ext.P1 proceedings dated 29-08-2006 that the said period from 19-10-2001 up to 28-03-2002 shall be regularised as eligible leave and the petitioner was directed to submit leave applications to the competent authorities concerned in order to take further steps in that regard. Further it has also been ordered as per Ext.P1 that further proceedings against the petitioner will also stand dropped, presumably in view of the acquittal by the criminal court. Later, the Chief Engineer, Human Resource Management (HRM) of the respondent Board had issued Ext.P2 proceedings for examining the leave applications of the petitioner and ordered that based on the leave available to his credit, the period from 19-10-2001 Forenoon to 28-03-2002 Afternoon shall be treated as if he was on commuted leave for 161 days as per Rule 84 Part I KSR and for further period from 29-03-2002 up to 14-03-2003, the said period of 351 days, shall be regularised as if he was on leave without allowances, etc. It has also been ordered in the last paragraph of Ext.P2 that the abovesaid leave without allowance period for 351 days from 29-03-2002 to 14-03-2003 will not count for any service benefits and that necessary entries in that regard should be made in the service book of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
