Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 783
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
D. K. SINGH, J.
Joseph Froid Periara - Appellant
Versus
The Kerala State Electricity Board, Represented By Its Secretary - Respondents
WP(C) No. 3615 of 2023
Decided on : 20-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADVS. DINOOP P.D. C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) VIVEK NAIR P. ANANDA PADMANABHAN UTHARA A.S NIDHI BALACHANDRAN VIJAYKRISHNAN S. MENON M.R.SUDHEENDRAN
For the Respondent: BY ADVS. SHRI.B.PREMOD, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD K.S.ANIL ANTONY MUKKATH
IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the punishment of compulsory retirement, affirming that procedural fairness was maintained throughout the disciplinary proceedings despite the petitioner's claims of injustice.
Headnote:
(A) KSEBL Employees (CC&A) Regulations, 1969 - Disciplinary Proceedings - Compulsory retirement imposed following multiple findings of misconduct involving power theft and tampering with energy meters - The petitioner challenged the disciplinary actions and procedural fairness throughout the proceedings. (Paras 1 - 19 )
(B) Natural Justice - The court emphasized that procedural lapses must be substantial to warrant interference in disciplinary proceedings, and minor infractions do not merit judicial review of punishment. (Paras 11 - 18 )
(C) Quantum of Punishment - The court held that it would not interfere with the punishment imposed unless it is grossly disproportionate to the misconduct. (Paras 18 - 19 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was found guilty of power theft involving multiple consumers, resulting in disciplinary actions leading to compulsory retirement after numerous appeals and remands.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision, confirming that the proceedings were conducted fairly and the evidence substantiated the charges.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the procedural fairness of the disciplinary enquiry and the appropriateness of the imposed punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the disciplinary authority followed proper procedures, and the evidence supported the findings of misconduct, justifying the punishment of compulsory retirement.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(D.K. SINGH, J.)
The petitioner, who was working as Overseer, 66KV Sub Station, Njarakkal, has approached this Court in the present writ petition, challenging the punishment order of compulsory retirement dated 13.10.2022 as well as the order dated 09.02.2023 passed by the Chairman / Managing director in appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said punishment order. The petitioner was suspended from service vide the order dated 19.06.2006, while he was working as Lineman Grade I of Electrical Section Central, Ernakulam for the alleged theft of electric energy deducted at three commercial institutions at Ernakulam and at the premise of another Board employee, Sri. A.G Dinesh during the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) inspection conducted by the Kottayam unit.
2.The preliminary enquiry conducted by the Assistant Executive Engineer, APTS, disclosed in the findings that the petitioner, in connivance with Sri. A G Dinesh had tampered with the energy meters for illegal gratification. The statement of the consumers recorded during the surprise check and the confessional statement of the employees shed light on the illegal nexus of the Board employees with certain consumers. Therefore, disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner by issuing the following memo of charges dated 16.12.2006:-
“1.That a power theft involving tampering of meter and seals was carried out by Sri. Joseph Freud Pereira at the premises of Con. No. 3289 of Electrical Section, Kalamassery which is occupied by Sri. A.G. Dinesh, then Senior Superintendent, Electrical Section, Thevakkal as detected during a suprise inspection of APTS on 06.06.2006.
2. That Sri. Joseph Freud Pereira carried out the power theft at the premises of M/s Jos Opticals, Cons. No. 1109 under Electrical Section, College, Ernakulam. It is revealed that theft was done in connivance with Sri. A.G. Dinesh, then Senior Superintendent of Electrical Section, Thevakkal, for which an illegal gratification of Rs. 3000/- was accepted from the shop owner.
3. That Sri. Joseph Freud Pereira carried out the power theft of M/s VAS Hotel, Ernakulam, North (Cons. No. 3022 of Electrical Section, Central Ernakulam ) in conspiracy with Sri. A.G. Dinesh accepting an illegal gratification of Rs. 20,000/-and accepted several times Rs. 1000/- for tampering Electric Meter of the consumer before the regular billing
4.That Sri. Joseph Freud Pereira carried power theft in the premises of M/s Sahara Lodge Convent Road, Ernakulam for which Sri. Joseph Freud Pereira accepted initially Rs. 5000/- from the consumer and accepted several times Rs. 3000/- for tampering the Electric Meter before the regular billing.
5. That the involvement of Sri. Joseph Freud Pereira in the theft of energy in various consumer premises has resulted in large revenue loss to the Board.
6. That the involvement of Sri. Joseph Freud Pereira in such illegal activities is a matter of dishonesty and grave misconduct on your part which spoiled the image of the KSEBoard.“
3.As the reply submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory, a formal departmental enquiry was ordered by the disciplinary authority vide the order dated 11.06.2007. At the conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report with findings and observations that the charges levelled against the delinquent employee were proved and established. The disciplinary authority, after considering the reply to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, found the petitioner involved in cheating his employer for some illegal gratification, and his conduct was coming under the purview of culpable misconduct deserving major punishment. Punishment of ‘removal from service’ was inflicted upon the petitioner vide the order dated 07.11.2014.
4. Aggrieved by the said order of punishment of ‘removal from service’, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Chairman and Managing Director, the appellate authority on 10.12.2014. The appellate authority examine
