V.V.Gopalan Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1128891
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnFeb-10-2014
JudgeHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
AppellantV.V.Gopalan
RespondentKerala State Electricity Board
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr. justice babu mathew p.joseph monday,the10h day of february201421st magha, 1935 wp(c).no. 24526 of 2010 (m) ---------------------------- petitioner : -------------------- v.v.gopalan, sub - engineer (retd.) kerala state electricity board, electrical section bheemanadi, residing at sree shylam, korankulam p.o.udinoor, kasaragod district. by adv. sri.p.m.pareeth respondent(s) : ---------------------------- 1. kerala state electricity board represented by its secretary, vidyuthi bhavanam pattom, thiruvananthapuram.2. chief engineer (hrm) kerala state electricity board, vidyuthi bhavanam pattom, thiruvananthapuram.3. executive engineer electrical division, kanhangad, kasaragod district4 chairman kerala state electricity board, vidyuthi bhavanam pattom, thiruvananthapuram.5. special officer, managing committee kerala state electricity board, vidyuthi bhavanam pattom, thiruvananthapuram. r1 to r5 by adv. sri.k.s.anil, sc, kseb this writ petition (civil) having been finally heard on1002-2014, the court on the same day delivered the following: mn ...2/- wp(c).no. 24526 of 2010 (m) appendix petitioner's exhibits : ext.p1 : photocopy of the order of suspension dated3012-1999. ext.p2 photocopy of the judgment dated289-2006 in cc no. 3/2001. ext.p3 photocopy of the show cause notice dated49-2007 issued by the third respondent. ext.p4 photocopy of the reply dated109-2007 submitted by the petitioner before the3d respondent. ext.p4(a) photocopy of the judgment dated3012.2007 in wp(c) no. 32200/2007. ext.p5 photocopy of the proceedings dated1912-2007 issued by the3d respondent. ext.p6 photocopy of the appeal dated225-2009 submitted by the petitioner. ext.p7 photocopy of the order dated33-2010 issued by the4h respondent. respondent's exhibits : nil //true copy// p.a. to judge mn babu mathew p. joseph, j.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - w.p.(c) no.24526 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - dated this the 10th day of february, 2014 judgment the short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to full pay and allowances as provided under sub-rule (3) of rule 56b of part i of the kerala service rules or not.2. heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.3. the petitioner, while he was working as a sub engineer at the electrical section, beemanady, was suspended from service as per ext.p1 order dated 30.12.1999 with effect from 29.12.1999 an in connection with a trap case registered by the vigilance and anti- corruption bureau. while continuing under suspension, the petitioner retired from service on superannuation on 31.10.2002. the anti-corruption case charge sheeted against him came to be dismissed as per ext.p2 judgment of the enquiry commissioner and special judge, kozhikode. w.p.(c) no.24526 of 2010 -2- thereafter, the third respondent issued ext.p3 show cause notice to the petitioner directing him to show cause why his suspension period from 30.12.1999 to 31.10.2002 should not be treated as suspension itself. the petitioner submitted ext.p4 explanation to the show cause. on considering the matter, as per ext.p5 order, the third respondent, confirming the proposal, ordered that the period of suspension of the petitioner would be treated as suspension itself and that he was not entitled to pay and allowances during that period of suspension. aggrieved by the order so passed by the third respondent, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the fourth respondent. the fourth respondent disposed of that appeal by ext.p7 order dated 03.03.2010 holding that since the petitioner has not worked during the period of suspension, that period cannot be treated as duty but may be treated as eligible leave.4. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offences alleged against the petitioner were under sections 7 and 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of the w.p.(c) no.24526 of 2010 -3- prevention of corruption act, 1988 and also read with section 34 of the indian penal code. the enquiry commissioner and special judge acquitted the accused of the offences alleged against him as per ext.p2 judgment. therefore, the petitioner is entitled to full pay and allowances.5. learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner is not entitled to full pay and allowances during the period he was kept under suspension as the suspension cannot be treated as wholly unjustified within the meaning of sub-rule (3) of rule 56b of part i of the k.s.r. the criminal court acquitted the petitioner of the charges only for insufficiency of evidence. it is not an honourable acquittal or an acquittal of the blame of the offences alleged against him, he further submits.6. the criminal court, after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, found that there was no sufficient evidence to prove acceptance of mo1 currency note of rs.500/- by the petitioner. hence, it was found w.p.(c) no.24526 of 2010 -4- further that the prosecution has failed to prove the acceptance of mo1 by the petitioner. going by ext.p2 judgment of the criminal court it cannot be found to be an honourable acquittal or that the petitioner was acquitted of the blame. ext.p2 shows that for want of sufficient evidence for finding the petitioner guilty of the offences alleged, he was acquitted. an employee is entitled to full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended if the suspension was found to be 'wholly unjustified' as provided under sub-rule (3) of rule 56b of part i of the k.s.r. here, the petitioner was suspended on a grave allegation of receiving illegal gratification and that too in a trap case allegedly in the presence of a deputy superintendent of police and a tahsildar. he was suspended based on the report received from the deputy superintendent of police. in such a circumstance, the suspension of the petitioner from service was justified. he was acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. it was not an honourable acquittal or an acquittal of the w.p.(c) no.24526 of 2010 -5- blame. therefore, the suspension of the petitioner from service cannot be found to be wholly unjustified. viewed in that manner, this court does not find any reason to quash exts.p5 or p7. this writ petition fails and hence, it is dismissed. sd/- babu mathew p. joseph, judge shg/
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH MONDAY,THE10H DAY OF FEBRUARY201421ST MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 24526 of 2010 (M) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- V.V.GOPALAN, SUB - ENGINEER (RETD.) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION BHEEMANADI, RESIDING AT SREE SHYLAM, KORANKULAM P.O.UDINOOR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENT(S) : ---------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT4 CHAIRMAN KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

5. SPECIAL OFFICER, MANAGING COMMITTEE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUTHI BHAVANAM PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1002-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 24526 of 2010 (M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER

OF SUSPENSION DATED3012-1999. EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT

DATED289-2006 IN CC NO. 3/2001. EXT.P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED49-2007 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED109-2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE3D RESPONDENT. EXT.P4(a) PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT

DATED3012.2007 IN WP(C) NO. 32200/2007. EXT.P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED1912-2007 ISSUED BY THE3D RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL DATED225-2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER

DATED33-2010 ISSUED BY THE4H RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.24526 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of February, 2014

JUDGMENT

The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to full pay and allowances as provided under sub-rule (3) of Rule 56B of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules or not.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner, while he was working as a Sub Engineer at the Electrical Section, Beemanady, was suspended from service as per Ext.P1 order dated 30.12.1999 with effect from 29.12.1999 AN in connection with a trap case registered by the Vigilance and Anti- corruption Bureau. While continuing under suspension, the petitioner retired from service on superannuation on 31.10.2002. The anti-corruption case charge sheeted against him came to be dismissed as per Ext.P2 judgment of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode. W.P.(C) No.24526 of 2010 -2- Thereafter, the third respondent issued Ext.P3 show cause notice to the petitioner directing him to show cause why his suspension period from 30.12.1999 to 31.10.2002 should not be treated as suspension itself. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 explanation to the show cause. On considering the matter, as per Ext.P5 order, the third respondent, confirming the proposal, ordered that the period of suspension of the petitioner would be treated as suspension itself and that he was not entitled to pay and allowances during that period of suspension. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the third respondent, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent disposed of that appeal by Ext.P7 order dated 03.03.2010 holding that since the petitioner has not worked during the period of suspension, that period cannot be treated as duty but may be treated as eligible leave.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offences alleged against the petitioner were under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the W.P.(C) No.24526 of 2010 -3- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge acquitted the accused of the offences alleged against him as per Ext.P2 judgment. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to full pay and allowances.

5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner is not entitled to full pay and allowances during the period he was kept under suspension as the suspension cannot be treated as wholly unjustified within the meaning of sub-rule (3) of Rule 56B of Part I of the K.S.R. The criminal court acquitted the petitioner of the charges only for insufficiency of evidence. It is not an honourable acquittal or an acquittal of the blame of the offences alleged against him, he further submits.

6. The criminal court, after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, found that there was no sufficient evidence to prove acceptance of MO1 currency note of Rs.500/- by the petitioner. Hence, it was found W.P.(C) No.24526 of 2010 -4- further that the prosecution has failed to prove the acceptance of MO1 by the petitioner. Going by Ext.P2 judgment of the criminal court it cannot be found to be an honourable acquittal or that the petitioner was acquitted of the blame. Ext.P2 shows that for want of sufficient evidence for finding the petitioner guilty of the offences alleged, he was acquitted. An employee is entitled to full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended if the suspension was found to be 'wholly unjustified' as provided under sub-rule (3) of Rule 56B of Part I of the K.S.R. Here, the petitioner was suspended on a grave allegation of receiving illegal gratification and that too in a trap case allegedly in the presence of a Deputy Superintendent of Police and a Tahsildar. He was suspended based on the report received from the Deputy Superintendent of Police. In such a circumstance, the suspension of the petitioner from service was justified. He was acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. It was not an honourable acquittal or an acquittal of the W.P.(C) No.24526 of 2010 -5- blame. Therefore, the suspension of the petitioner from service cannot be found to be wholly unjustified. Viewed in that manner, this court does not find any reason to quash Exts.P5 or P7. This writ petition fails and hence, it is dismissed. Sd/- BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE shg/