KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. C.P.THOMAS

K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.-------------------------------------W.A.Nos.232 & 282 OF 2006------------------------------------- Dated this, the 20th day of July, 2009J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~Balakrishnan Nair, J.W.A.Nos.232 OF 2006:The respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants.The brief facts of the case are the following:The writ petitioner was a retired Chief Engineer of theKerala State Electricity Board. He was suspended from serviceon 3.7.1987 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. Theallegation against him was that certain imprudent purchasesmade by him caused a loss of Rs. 25 lakhs to the Board. Later,he was reinstated in service on 30.9.1987 and he was promotedon 1.12.1987. He was due to retire on 30.9.1988. On the eveof his retirement, he was issued with a memo of charges on6.9.1988. Since the writ petitioner declined to accept it, thesame was sent by registered post. But, it was returned with anendorsement that the addressee is not seen. So, till the date ofhis retirement on 30.9.1988, the memo was not served on him. W.A.Nos.232 & 282/20062Later, a show cause notice was served on him on 28.3.1989proposing to recover an amount of Rs. 2,04,426/-. It was decidedto recover the said amount from his DCRG and also from pension.Therefore, he filed O.P.No.3626/1990 challenging the abovesteps. There was a stay against further proceedings. Finally, theOriginal Petition was disposed of on 23.7.1993 quashing thenotices and orders served on him proposing recovery, but, givingliberty to the KSEB to take fresh action in accordance with law.The disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer on23.11.1993, as per Ext.2. Thereafter, the petitioner was servedwith a notice on 29.6.1994 proposing to commence the enquiry.After a few sittings, last of which was on 15.6.1995, nothing washeard in the matter. So, the petitioner filed a representation,Ext.P3, before the Government on 15.6.1996 pointing out theillegalities in the conduct of the enquiry. Since the petitionertook the stand that no memo of charges was ever served on him,as per Ext.P4, on 26.11.1996, a copy of memo of charges wasserved on him. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 reply on6.1.1997. By Ext.P6, a formal enquiry was ordered into thecharges. The petitioner filed a petition before the InquiringAuthority in the form of a preliminary objection pointing out the W.A.Nos.232 & 282/20063alleged illegality in continuing the enquiry. This Court by Ext.P7judgment dated 27.5.1998 directed the Inquiring authority totake a decision on the preliminary objection. The InquiringAuthority passed Ext.P8 order on 11.9.1998 overruling theobjections of the petitioner and deciding to proceed against him.The petitioner again moved this Court by filing the present WritPetition, challenging Ext.P8, and obtained stay of furtherproceedings. Finally, the said Original Petition was heard andallowed by the judgment under appeal on 29.9.2005. The learnedSingle Judge disposed of the Writ Petition giving the followingdirections.“Technically, at least the petitioner is entitledto succeed. I quash Ext.P8 and direct that allproceedings as against the petitioner will standset aside. If the monetary benefits of thepetitioner are yet to be settled, steps should betaken as to settle such claims forthwith.However, as the delay in disbursement wasprincipally arising of the conduct of thepetitioner and pendency of these proceedings, Idirect that he will not be entitled to anyinterest for the sums due. Amounts should bepaid however within a maximum period of threemonths.” W.A.Nos.232 & 282/200642.It is not clear from the above judgment, what is thetechnical point based on which the writ petitioner is entitled tosucceed. But, both sides submitted that it was the time framefixed by Rule 3 Part III of the Kerala Service Rules. Since Ext.P4was served only in 1996, after about 8 years of the retirement ofthe petitioner, the proceedings cannot be continued in view of thestipulations in Rule 3. This was a point decided by the InquiringAuthority in Ext.P8 and it was the point mainly canvassed beforethe learned Single Judge, it is submitted by both sides. Therefore,the technical point, which weighed with the learned Single Judge,was that the charge sheet was served on the petitioner beyondthe four year time limit contained in Rule 3. But we notice thatthe charge sheet was sent to the petitioner on 6.9.1988 before hisretirement. He managed not to accept it by keeping away and itwas returned with the endorsement that the addressee is notseen. We feel that the issuance of charge sheet on 6.9.1988 canbe taken as serving charge sheet on him. By deliberately refusingto accept the charge sheet, the petitioner cannot claim the benefitof time limit of four years prescribed in Rule 3 of Part III K.S.R. Ifthat be so, the bar of limitation will not apply to the proceedingsagainst the petitioner. W.A.Nos.232 & 282/200653.It is true, there was some delay from the part of theK.S.E.B. to proceed against the petitioner. But, the main delaywas occasioned by the deliberate action of the petitioner. In 1990he moved this Court and obtained stay of proceedings againsthim for three years. Again in 1998 he moved this court andobtained stay of the proceedings against him for seven years. So,atleast for 10 years delay, he alone is responsible. So, he cannotbe allowed to take advantage of his own conduct. In the result, we reverse the judgment of the learned SingleJudge and dismiss the Writ Petition. The appellant can proceedwith the enquiry against the respondent/writ petitioner. But, theenquiry shall be completed within six months from the date ofproduction of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Appeal is allowedas above. W.A.No.282/2006:In view of the judgment in W.A.No.232/2006, this WritAppeal is also dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)ps