The imposition of a disciplinary penalty lacks proper legal foundation when liability is improperly assigned and natural justice principles are violated.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2026 This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated

06.01.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.31747 of

2024. Appellant was the petitioner in the said W.P.(C).

2. On 30.10.2021, two Engineering College Students were fatally electrocuted upon coming into contact with a broken electric line. The incident happened within the limits of Nallila Electrical Station of the KSEB in Kollam District. Ext.P1 memo of charges was issued to the appellant, who, during the relevant time, was working as the Overseer at Veliyam Electrical Station. The reasoning provided was that though the incident occurred within the limits of Nallila Electrical Station, appellant who was the Overseer in Veliyam Electrical Station, was liable to be proceeded against inter alia for the reason that there was an unexplained delay from his part in taking necessary steps to supply electricity to two customers from a transformer within the limits of Veliyam Electrical Section. This had allegedly necessitated supply to the said two consumers by sustaining a line across the Nedumankavu river from the Nallila Section, thus creating a circumstance for the accident. In the enquiry that followed, Ext.P2 report was submitted, based on which a major penalty of withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the appellant vide Ext.P3 order issued by the 3rd respondent Chief Engineer. Ext.P4 appeal to review the punishment imposed was rejected by the 5th respondent, Chairman and Managing Director vide Ext.P5. Aggrieved by the same, and contending inter alia that a report of the Electrical Inspector dated 02.03.2022 produced as Ext.P6 had not been taken into account by the Inquiry Officer, the W.P.(C) was filed by the appellant, challenging Exts.P2, P3, P5 and P6.

3. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment dismissed the W.P.(C) inter alia holding that no ground to interfere with the order of punishment for which the enquiry was conducted had been made out. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, this Writ Appeal is filed.

4. Heard Sri.Sajeev Kumar K.Gopal, Advocate for the appellant, Sri.Antony Mukkath, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 5 and Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the W.P.(C) and that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law. The learned Single Judge had only considered the question of denial of natural justice and had brushed aside the other contentions put forth by the appellant regarding the fundamentally erroneous premise on which the enquiry report had been based. It is submitted that the Chief Safety Officer, who was examined as PW8, had specifically deposed that the maintenance of the line was the responsibility of Nallila Section and that a tree had been uprooted and the river was overflowing due to the heavy rainfall that had occurred in the relevant area. There was enough material placed to show that the accident was due to an act of God and a natural calamity for which no responsibility could be fixed on the appellant on the ground that the line was not properly maintained. It had been specifically brought out in the disciplinary proceedings that the line starting from VO 58/21 of the Kalmbira transformer of Nallila Section crosses the river and reaches the section fuse. Hence, from post VO 58/21 to the section fuse the line exclusively situated within the Nallila Section, whereby the responsibility to maintain the line was also on the Nallila Section and not on the Veliyam Section, where the appellant had been working. Hence, by any stretch of imagination, no liability could have been fixed on the Veliyam Section or upon the appellant, and the said aspect has been clearly revealed in evidence before the enquiry officer. The contentions put forth concerning the unsustainability o