Procedural compliance and principles of natural justice must be upheld in disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court, challenging Exts.P1, P3, P4, P6, P13, P15 and P16 orders.

2. The petitioner, while working as a Sub Engineer in the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’), received Ext.P1 memo of charges, to which explanation was offered by the petitioner. The 4th respondent, not being satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was ordered and the enquiry Officer has submitted Ext.P3 report.

3. A perusal of Ext.P3 report revealed that, there is absolutely no finding by the enquiry Officer to any of the allegations raised against the petitioner. Without considering the said aspect, Ext.P4 show cause notice was issued without even serving a copy of the enquiry report on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 and without considering the rival contentions raised in Ext.P5, a punishment was imposed as per Ext.P6, wherein an amount of Rs.1,09,624/- (Rupees One lakh nine thousand six hundred and twenty four only) was directed to be recovered from the petitioner, being the loss caused to the Board. The petitioner filed Ext.P7 appeal, wherein a specific contention was raised that a copy of the enquiry report was never supplied to the petitioner. Without considering any of these aspects, the appeal was rejected as per Ext.P13.

4. A perusal of Ext.P13 would reveal that a further enquiry was ordered and an enquiry report was submitted on 04.02.2019, ie., after imposition of Ext.P6 order of punishment. A further reading of Ext.P13 revealed that the said enquiry was interfered by the Chairman, and held that the punishment imposed as per Ext.P6 is not liable to be interfered with. A revision petition was filed before the Board, as provided in Regulation 35 of the Kerala State Electricity Board Employees’ (Classification, Control & Appeal) Regulations (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’), but the matter was relegated by the Board to the Chief Engineer, Human Resources Management, for a decision and the said authority had rejected the revision petition. The petitioner submitted that the power entrusted with the Board to review any order, cannot be relegated to a subordinate Officer.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, supporting the impugned orders, stating that the petitioner had not performed his duty, thereby causing loss to the Board.

6. Heard the learned Counsel on both sides.

7. A perusal of Ext.P3 enquiry report revealed that there is absolutely no finding regarding any guilt on any of the charges levelled against the petitioner. Going by Regulation 16(9) of the Regulations, the enquiry Officer, at the conclusion of inquiry, shall prepare and report of the inquiry, recording its finding on each of the charges together with reasons thereof, which is absolutely lacking in Ext.P3 enquiry report. Though in Ext.P4, the petitioner was directed to show cause, copy of the enquiry report was not served on the petitioner and the petitioner has taken a specific ground in Ext.P7 appeal that the enquiry report was not served on the petitioner.

8. Though a specific contention was raised in Ext.P7 that no report of enquiry was served on the petitioner, there is no finding regarding the same in Ext.P13 Appellate order. Yet another aspect to be noted is that the petitioner invoked Regulation 35 of the Regulations and submitted a review petition before the Board and the same is relegated to the subordinate Officer, the Chief Engineer, Human Resources Management, who considered the review petition and dismissed the same as per Ext.P15.

9. The enquiry started in the year 2015 and almost eleven years have passed after the same. All the