C.P. Kuttykrishnan Vaidyar vs Kerala State Electricity Board and Others

Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J.

These two appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 07.02.2011 in W.P. (C) Nos. 33795 and 33794 of 2008. The two writ petitioners approached this Court challenging withholding of DCRG amounts payable to them after their retirement by the respondent employer on the ground that on account of lapses on the part of the writ petitioners the Board has to sustain huge loss amounting to Rs. 3,17,125/-.

It is not in dispute that these two appellants were employees of Kerala State Electricity Board who retired on 31.05.2005. The entire issue revolves round the issue of non-assessing the consumption charges of one consumer with No. 492 AP (LT IV) installed in his rice flakes mill. According to the Board, the meter installed in the premises of consumer was C.T. meter with multiplication factor being 20 (100/5), but the meter readers, i.e. both the appellants who were in charge of consumer No. 492 AP, though took meter reading from April 2002 to January 2003 ignored multiplication factor resulting in huge loss to the Board. As soon as the matter was noticed, the 1st respondent Board prepared an invoice for Rs. 3,17,125/- towards the arrears of electricity consumption charges from July 2001 to January 2003 against consumer No. 492 AP-rice flakes mill under electricity section in the jurisdiction of Chokli.

It is not in dispute that so far as the revised bill demanding payment of Rs. 3,17,125/- from the consumer, the consumer approached this Court and ultimately he was not successful. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed as per Exhibit. P7 judgment. This entitles the respondent Board to proceed against the consumer for recovery of the amount.

Apparently disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellants regarding their negligence resulting in huge loss to the Board and it ended with a punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. This also came to be challenged by the appellants but, however, they were not successful. Then subsequently after retirement of these appellants on 31.05.2005, when they were not paid DCRG amounts, on enquiry they learned that DCRG amounts were withheld to the extent of the loss caused on account of wrong billing of them so far as consumer No. 492 AP which is Rs. 3,17,125/-. Aggrieved by the same, they approached this Court.

The learned Single Judge at paragraph 2 onwards refers to various proceedings especially the proceedings pertaining to the writ petition filed by the consumer and also the challenge against the disciplinary proceedings and punishment and penalty imposed against the appellants. Apparently, the decision to recover Rs. 3,17,125/- was not the issue in the disciplinary proceedings, but it was altogether a different decision taken by the Board in order to rectify the loss caused to the Board. Apparently the learned Single Judge having regard to the duty entrusted to the appellants opined that the loss to the Board is directly on account of the negligence in discharging their duties by these appellants, therefore though the Board could recover the amount from the consumer, it has to be recovered from the appellants and later on if the Board is successful in recovering whatever amount from the consumer it would be reimbursed to the appellants. Aggrieved by the same, they are before us.

Apparently the writ petition filed by the consumer in W.P. (C) No. 28751 of 2008 was dismissed by the very same judge on the very same date. These two writ petitions came to be disposed of. Once the learned Single Judge was convinced that it was the consumer who was benefited by the mistake committed by the appellants, the monetary benefit that has accrued on account of such mistake has gone only to the consumer and appellants cannot be receivers of any benefit from the consumer. Even otherwise, from the material it is seen immediately after realising the mistake, a revised bill came to be prepared and sent to the consumer.

As a matter of fact the mistake occurred on account of change in the policy of Board to install C.T. meters with multiplication factor of 20 in commercial establishments. It is also not in dispute that the mistake occurred immediately after installing C.T. meters in the commercial establishments. These two appellants were used to prepare bill as usual they were preparing prior to the installation of C.T. meters. Therefore, possibly a mistake has occurred while calculating consumption charges of the consumer on bimonthly basis. It may not be out of place to mention that whenever a bill is prepared, first copy will normally be issued to the consumer or left at the consumer''s premises and the duplicate or the carbon copy of the bill prepared by the meter reader will be brought back to the Department and the same would be entered in the registers pertaining to the respective consumers. This has to be periodically checked by the accounts branch and higher officials. When the Board has introduced installation of C.T. meters, there was a duty cast upon the accounts branch to verify whenever such C.T. meters were installed whether the billing was properly done or not. As a matter of fact the material on record shows that they were only six such C.T. meters installed and therefore when enquiry was made they found that this particular consumer No. 492 AP was one of those six consumers who got C.T. meter installation. Therefore, as the C.T. meters were newly installed and if the meter readers were not aware of multiplication factor of 20, they are likely to proceed with the billing as earlier done which has lead to the present problem. It is a case of negligence rather than malafide intention making wrongful game on the part of the appellants. In the departmental proceedings negligence was the main issue for which they were punished withholding two increments with cumulative effect. Once their misconduct of negligence is punished taking action in a disciplinary proceedings, which has reached finality, again punishing them for the same mistake by recovering the amount from their DCRG is nothing but punishing them twice for the same misconduct, especially when they had retired. If this action of the Board is approved it would only mean ruining the retired life of the appellants.

Even otherwise, the learned counsel for the Board is not able to convince us that procedurally they are right in recovering such amount from the appellants/petitioners when the benefit is taken by the consumer for the wrong billing. The Board must make all sincere efforts to see that amount is recovered from the consumer rather than proceeding against the employees who are retired, especially when they are dealt with properly in disciplinary proceedings which has reached finality. Therefore, we are of the opinion, the learned Single Judge was not justified in holding that the Board was entitled to recover the money from the DCRG benefits of the appellants and later reimburse the same to them in case the Board is successful in recovering the said amount from the consumer.

Accordingly, we allow the appeals setting aside the judgment dated 07.02.2011 by allowing W.P. (C) Nos. 33795 and 33794 of 2008. We direct the 1st respondent Board to disburse the DCRG amounts withheld by them to the appellants and also other benefits, if any, stalled on account of the judgment dated 07.02.2011 within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.