High Court of KeralaWP(C)/26686/2009dismissed

K.J.Lijimon v. Kerala State Electricity Board

2015-09-15Honourable Mr.Justice K.Vinod Chandran3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/24TH BHADRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 26686 of 2009 (E) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:

-------------------------- K.J.LIJIMON, LINEMAN GRADE I, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PALLURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS:

----------------------------

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDHUTHI BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDHUTHI BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, MATTANCHERRY.

R,R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB R,R1-3 BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-092015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 26686 of 2009 (E) APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.7.2009 SENT BY THE PETITIONER'S EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DATED 25.08.2009 EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT 7.9.2009 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

EXT.R3(A): TRUECOPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE STANDING ORDERS FOR WORKMEN DT 27.10.1997 EXT.R3(B): TRUECOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.6.2009 TRUECOPY P.A TO JUDGE jma

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 26686 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of September, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner in the above writ petition challenges Ext.P2 memo of charges. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent the writ petition itself was premature. However, it is to be noticed that no orders were issued staying the charge memo. Hence the KSEB was entitled to proceed with the same and bring the proceedings to a logical conclusion. The KSEB also did nothing in the matter and the petitioner is said to have continued in service without any difficulty. In such circumstance, at this distance of time, this Court is of the opinion that the proceedings at Ext.P2 need not be continued. With such directions, the writ petition would stand disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge