Moni P.K v. Kerala State Electricity Board
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/16TH POUSHA, 1936 WA.No. 9 of 2015 () IN WP(C).13343/2014 ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 13343/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 13-11-2014 APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
---------------------------------- MONI P.K DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER BOLDING FULL POWER OF CHIEF ENGINEER PALLIVASAL EXTENSION SCHEME, MEENCUT, MUNNAR-685565 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANISON RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:
-------------------------------------
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004
2. MR.SHAHUL HAMEED M THE SECRETARY(ADMINISTRATION)KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTO PALACE P O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004
3. THE DEPARTMENT PROMOTION COMMITTEE(HIGHER) FOR TECHNICAL OFFICERS FOR PROMOTION TO THE CADRE OF CHIEF ENGINEER REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, PATTOM THIRUVANTHAPURAM-696004
4. MR S RAJEEV DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER RESEARCH AND DAM SAFETY ORGANISATION KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD PATTOM, KOTTAYAM-686007
5. SMT.P SUCHITHRA DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CIVIL) DESIGNING AND CONSTRUCTION SOUTH, VYTHYUDHI BHAVAN PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004
6. MR VARGHESE SAMEL DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER(CIVIL)OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (HRM)VYDHUTHI BHAVAN PATTOM PALACE P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004
-2WA.No. 9 of 2015
7. K V MOHANAN, DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CIVIL)KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD CIVIL CIRCLE, PALLOM, KOTTAYAM DIST
8. LALITHA M N DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER(CIVIL)KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD CIVIL CIRLCE, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DIST R BY SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR R1 TO R3 BY SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ASHOK BHUSHAN, Ag.CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 9 of 2015 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th January, 2015
JUDGMENT
Ashok Bhushan, Ag.CJ.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Board.
2. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 13.11.2014 in W.P(C). No.13343 of 2014. The Writ Appeal is confined only to the observations made in paragraph 29 of the judgment of the Single Judge, which is quoted as under:
"29. It is not in dispute that presently, too, there are substantive vacancies which are required to be filled up. It meets the ends of justice, in my considered opinion, if the respondent Board convenes DPC and considers the case of the petitioner either singly or with other eligible candidates to be promoted for the post of Chief Engineer. On such consideration, the respondent Board is at liberty to take
WA.9/15 recourse to sealed cover method till the finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings, which in any event are required to be expedited so that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner."
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is an order dated 18.2.2012 of the Kerala State Electricity Board regarding promotion of the officials of the Board and maintenance of performance appraisal reports and constitution of Departmental Promotion Committee. It is submitted that although the learned Single Judge in the judgment has extracted Clauses (g) and (h) of the order dated 18.2.2012, but has not relied upon Clause (h) of the order. It is submitted that in view of the observations made, the authorities are bound to follow the sealed cover procedure as contemplated under Clause (g). It is submitted that looking into the nature of allegations in the memo of charges, at best it is a case of minor penalty and hence Clause (h) alone is attracted.
4. We need not express any opinion on the merits of the said contention. We only observe that the observation
WA.9/15 in paragraph 29 of the judgment shall not preclude the competent authority to consider the case taking note of Clause (h) of the order, if the facts of the charges make out such a case.
With the above observation, the Writ Appeal is disposed of.
ASHOK BHUSHAN ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE vgs6/1/15