The court emphasized the necessity for the ultimate authority to review procedural irregularities and the proportionality of disciplinary penalties imposed on employees.

JUDGMENT

Anu Sivaraman J.

1. Both these appeals are directed against judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C).No.7182 of 2020. The appellant in W.A.No.794 of 2022 challenges the judgment inasmuch as the learned single Judge only reduced the punishment of removal from service to one of compulsory retirement and did not direct the reinstatement of the appellant. While the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited (KSEBL for short), the appellant in W.A.No.768 of 2022, challenges the finding in the judgment that the penalty of removal from service for the proven charge of unauthorised absence from 1.05.2013 onwards was shockingly disproportionate and that the next lower punishment of compulsory retirement from service is to be substituted.

2.The parties and documents are referred to as in W.P(C).No.7182 of 2020 for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3.The facts necessary for consideration of the issue are as follows:-

The petitioner in the writ petition, joined service as Assistant Engineer in the KSEBL on 18.3.1993. He was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer in 1996 and as Executive Engineer on 17.8.2011. He availed 7 days of leave on 3.4.2013 and the leave was sanctioned. Thereafter, on 10.4.2013, he sought extension of leave for 21 days and the same was sanctioned. It is the contention of the petitioner that he submitted an application for leave on 1.5.2013 and 'proceeded on leave'. It is stated that while so, a substitute was appointed as Executive Engineer in the petitioner's vacancy. On 23.10.2013, Exhibit P2 memo of charges was issued on the ground that he had absented from duty unauthorisedly from 1.5.2013 and had neither attended calls nor made available his phone number for contact for the authorities and that he left India without obtaining permission from the Board and thereby committed grave misconduct and dereliction of duty. On 16.11.2013, a written objection was filed by the petitioner to the memo of charges. By order dated 24.11.2014, a detailed enquiry was ordered, based on which Exhibit P4 report of enquiry was submitted on 7.3.2015. It is the contention of the appellant that the said enquiry report, while finding that the charges stood proved, recommended a lenient view to be taken in the matter. However, show-cause notices were issued and an order imposing the penalty of removal from service was issued against the petitioner. He filed Exhibit P8 appeal, which was dismissed by Exhibit P9 by the Chairman of the KSEBL, who passed Exhibit P7 termination order. Thereupon, Exhibit P10 review petition was also filed, which was dismissed by Exhibit P11 without stating any reasons. Exhibit P14 mercy petition filed was also dismissed, pursuant to which the writ petition was filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A. No.794/2022 contends that there were clear procedural irregularities as contained in the proceedings of the respondents as evident from the materials on record. It is stated that after Exhibit P4 enquiry report was submitted, Exhibit P5 show cause notice was issued in the letter head of the Chief Vigilance Officer though it was signed by the Chairman and the Managing Director. Though a reply was submitted before the Chairman and the Managing Director, Exhibit P7 proceedings were issued imposing the major penalty of removal from service after finding that he had wilfully absented from duty of KSEB for five years without availing any kind of leave for taking up another job abroad. It is submitted that the memo of charges issued to the appellant did not contain any such allegations and that the findings of the disciplinary authority are, therefore, completely unfounded. Thereafter, the appellant preferred an appeal as Exhibit P8, which was considered by the very same authority and rejected by Exhibit P9. Further, Exhibit P10 review petition submitted by the employee was