Kerala High Court
Jayashree Divakaran vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 2 July, 2025
Author: T.R.Ravi
Bench: T.R.Ravi
2025:KER:48126
WP(C) NO. 15568 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2025 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 15568 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
JAYASHREE DIVAKARAN
AGED 53 YEARS
W/O. SALINKUMAR K. S, KEERIPPAT HOUSE, KANCHIYAR
KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. PRESENTLY WORKING AS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 685511.
BY ADVS.
SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR
SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL
SRI.P.RAJKUMAR
SRI.KESHAVRAJ NAIR
SHRI.BIJU VIGNESWAR
SHRI.ARUN POOMULLI
SHRI.ABHIRAM.S.
SMT.GAADHA SURESH
SRI.T.K.BABU
SHRI.VISWANATH JAYAN
SMT.AKHILA RADHAKRISHNAN
SMT.SARIGA RAMACHANDRAN M.
SHRI.AKSHAY SHIBU
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
2025:KER:48126
WP(C) NO. 15568 OF 2025
2
VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695004.
2 THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED VYDYUTHI
BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004.
3 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT)
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), VYDYUTHI
BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004.
4 DISTRICT PROMOTION COMMITTEE (HIGHER)
REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.REGI MATHEW
SHRI.JOSEPH M.L.
SHRI.VANDAMEN ROX ANTONY K.
SHRI.TOMY CHACKO
SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH, SC
SRI.B.PREMOD, SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:48126
WP(C) NO. 15568 OF 2025
3
T.R. RAVI, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.15568 of 2025
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 02nd day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has challenged her non-inclusion in the select list prepared by the DPC for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer (Electrical). The proceeding of the DPC dated 11.02.2025 has been produced as Ext.P4. In Ext.P4, it has been specifically stated that the selection of the petitioner and some others has been deferred in view of remarks from the Chief Vigilance Officer, KSEBL and insufficient Benchmark Grading. This Court had in the interim order dated 06.03.2025 in W.P.(C) No.1672 of 2025 directed the respondent Board to clarify whether the censure which had been awarded to the petitioner earlier had affected her chance of promotion to the post and also to place before the Court the APAR grading of the petitioner for the last three years which was taken into 2025:KER:48126 WP(C) NO. 15568 OF 2025 4 consideration by the DPC while considering the petitioner's case for promotion. In reply, Ext.P6 affidavit had been filed wherein it is stated that the punishment of censure was not a reason for excluding her from the select list and that an enquiry had been conducted by the Chief Vigilance Officer and the Chairman and Managing Director had on 04.03.2025 addressed to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau for initiating criminal prosecution against the petitioner. It is evident that the letter had been issued only on 04.03.2025 and on the date of consideration by the DPC there were no vigilance proceedings against the petitioner. The subsequent events cannot be the reason for non-inclusion of the petitioner in the select list. The reason stated in Ext.P4 cannot hence be justified as a reason for refusing to include the petitioner in the select list.
2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs. Doli Loyi [AIR 2024 SC 4834] 2025:KER:48126 WP(C) NO. 15568 OF 2025 5 considered the question whether the mere grant of a prosecution sanction would be a valid ground for keeping the DPC recommendations in a sealed cover. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to be initiated against an employee only when a charge memo is issued to the employee in a disciplinary proceeding or a charge sheet for a criminal prosecution is filed in the competent court and a sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after issuance of a charge memo/charge sheet. The pendency of investigation and grant of prosecution sanction will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure.
In the case on hand, even the sealed cover procedure is not followed and a mere possibility of an action alone is stated as the reason for non-inclusion. The petitioner is entitled to succeed. The writ petition is allowed. Ext.P4, in so far as it does not include the petitioner in the select list is set 2025:KER:48126 WP(C) NO. 15568 OF 2025 6 aside. There will be a direction to the 4th respondent to review Ext.P4 select list and include the petitioner in the appropriate position. The respondents are free to conduct a review DPC, if so warranted.
Sd/-
T.R.RAVI JUDGE mpm 2025:KER:48126 WP(C) NO. 15568 OF 2025 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15568/2025 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.VIG/ B7/141515/2023/4223 DATED 11.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF W. P. (C).
NO. 1672/2025 (WITHOUT EXHIBITS) DATED 14.01.2025 PENDING ON THE FILES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 5.02.2025 PREFERRED BY RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 IN W. P. (C). NO. 1672/2025.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER NO.
KSEBL/SEC/ESTT/938/2024-S3 DATED 11.02.2025.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 06.03.2025 IN W. P. (C). NO. 1672/2025. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21.03.2025 IN W. P. (C). NO. 1672/2025.