JUDGMENT V. Sivaraman Nair, J. 1. The petitioner was a Cashier in the Kerala State Electricity Board. He was suspended from service pending enquiry into the allegations of criminal misappropriation of the funds of the Board. That was on 1-3-1985. He was also simultaneously prosecuted in C. C. No. 567/8) for offences punishable under S.409 of the Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thodupuzha. The Magistrate convicted him. He filed an appeal against the conviction and before the Court of the Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha and obtained an order of stay of the sentence. The respondent, however, passed Ext. P1 order on 21-5-1985 dismissing the petitioner from service in view of his conviction on a criminal charge under S.499 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner submits that Ext. P1 order is illegal and liable to be vacated. 2. The ground urged by counsel for the petitioner is that Ext. P1 order ought to have been preceded by a notice to show cause and an enquiry conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders. Reference is made to Clause.21 (xxiii) of the Standing Orders to the effect that conviction in any Court of Law for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude and upon being sentenced to imprisonment as a punishment constitutes a misconduct. Reference is also made to Clause.24 of the Standing Orders prescribing procedure to be followed in disciplinary cases. According to that clause, the misconduct can be found only after conducting an enquiry in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Standing Orders. Reference is also made to Clause.26 of the Standing Orders to the effect that: "(i) The service of any workman with not less than one year of continuous service shall not be dispensed with except for reasonable cause and without giving such workman one month's notice or wages in lieu of such notice." Counsel submits that these procedural safeguards have not been complied with in issuing Ext. P1 order dismissing the petitioner from service. He, therefore, submits that Ext. P1 is illegal apart from being violative of the principles of natural justice. He also refers to circular. No. EBI/11 944/71 dated 25-2-1972 to the effect that the Standing Orders "will supersede all the previous orders which are not in conformity with the Standing Orders". P1 order dismissing the petitioner from service. He, therefore, submits that Ext. P1 is illegal apart from being violative of the principles of natural justice. He also refers to circular. No. EBI/11 944/71 dated 25-2-1972 to the effect that the Standing Orders "will supersede all the previous orders which are not in conformity with the Standing Orders". Counsel also relies on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in U.P. State Electricity Board v. Hari Sankar Jain ( 1978 (4) SCC 16 : AIR 1979 SC 65 ), to the effect that Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act which is special law in regard to service conditions will prevail and regulations made by the Electricity Board in such matters are of no effect unless such regulations are notified by the Government under S.13B or certified by the Certifying Officer under S.5 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner was suspended from service pending enquiry on 1-3-1985. The subject matter of the enquiry was a misconduct of having been involved in the criminal proceedings which resulted in his conviction by a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thodupuzha in C. C. 567/83. The petitioner has no case that his conviction on a criminal charge involving moral turpitude is not a misconduct. It is agreed that his appeal from the judgment of the Magistrate has been dismissed by the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. Counsel submits that he has filed a revision petition before this Court and the same is pending. In the light of these facts, it cannot be disputed that Ext. P1 order imposed a penalty for a misconduct. 3(a). The manner in which a penalty can be imposed on an employee of the Electricity Board is provided in two sets of rules the Kerala State Electricity Board Employee (Classification Control and Appeal) Regulations, (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Regulations'), which were promulgated under S.79(c) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, and the Standing Orders issued under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Standing Orders'). Clause.16 of the Regulations provides the procedure for imposing major penalties. Clause.24 of the Standing Orders is almost similar except that it applies to all disciplinary cases. Clause.26 of the Standing Orders, however, approximates the procedures under the Standing Orders to the same as in Clause.16 of the Regulations. Clause.16 of the Regulations provides the procedure for imposing major penalties. Clause.24 of the Standing Orders is almost similar except that it applies to all disciplinary cases. Clause.26 of the Standing Orders, however, approximates the procedures under the Standing Orders to the same as in Clause.16 of the Regulations. 4. Admittedly, the procedure in either Clause.16 of the Regulations or Clause.24 read with Clause.26 of the Standing Orders were not complied with in the present case before the issue of Ext. P1. In that sense, there is a procedural irregularity. I will assume in favour of the petitioner that the provisions of the Standing Orders may have effect in the matter of conduct of disciplinary enquiry and imposition of punishment of workmen employees of the Electricity Board. I will also assume in favour of the petitioner that conviction by a Criminal Court for an offence involving moral turpitude and leading to a sentence of imprisonment as a penalty is a specific misconduct which can be dealt with under the provisions of the Standing Offers. 5. As I have observed earlier, the Board did not comply with the procedure for conduct of enquiry either under the Regulations or under the Standing Orders. Sri. Pauly Mathai, Counsel appearing for the Board submits that in the nature of the misconduct, an enquiry to be conducted either under Clause.16 of the Regulations or under Clause.24 read with Caluse.26 of the Standing Orders will only be an empty formality, because the fact of his conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude and the award of sentence of imprisonment not being in dispute, the petitioner cannot avoid termination of service as a consequence thereof. However, he did not refer me to any rule or condition of service other than Clause.21 (xxiii) of the Standing Orders which provides conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude and a sentence of imprisonment as misconduct. Nor was he able to show that in all cases where such misconduct is committed there should automatic termination of service of the employee concerned. 6. Even assuming that a serious misconduct is committed and there is no defence against the same, an employee may nevertheless, successfully plead before the employer that he may not deserve the extreme penalty. Nor was he able to show that in all cases where such misconduct is committed there should automatic termination of service of the employee concerned. 6. Even assuming that a serious misconduct is committed and there is no defence against the same, an employee may nevertheless, successfully plead before the employer that he may not deserve the extreme penalty. The delinquent employee may, in some cases, successfully plead for reduction of the penalty due to extenuating or mitigating circumstances, as also on account of compassionate considerations. A disciplinary authority cannot prejudge the issue against the employee without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It may perhaps be that the authority may not yield It has nevertheless, to provide the employee a reasonable opportunity to plead for a reduction in the penalty. That is the only explanation why even in such clear cases of conviction for offences involving moral turpitude and award of sentence of imprisonment, the Standing Orders insist that there shall be an enquiry. It is only in that sense can one understand the provisions contained in Clause.26 of the Standing Orders that the service of no workman with not less than one year of continuous service shall be dispensed with except for reasonable cause and without giving such workman one month's notice or wages in lieu of such notice, and that no order of termination of service of a workman shall be made unless the workman is informed in writing of the reasons for terminating his service and is also given an opportunity to show cause against such termination. Almost similar are the provisions contained in Clause.16 of the regulations. 7. On the admitted facts, Ext. P1 order was issued without complying with the requirements of the above rules which incorporate the principles of natural justice as far as workmen employees of the Kerala State Electricity Beard are concerned. In this view, I allow this Original Petition and set aside Ext. P1 order of termination of service. The petitioner may show cause against the proposal to terminate his service. In view of the specific provisions contained in Clause.21 (xxiii) of the Standing Orders, the cause which the petitioner can show can only be against the penalty of termination of service. He is not entitled to show cause against the fact of the misconduct, because on the admission of the petitioner, he had committed such misconduct. In view of the specific provisions contained in Clause.21 (xxiii) of the Standing Orders, the cause which the petitioner can show can only be against the penalty of termination of service. He is not entitled to show cause against the fact of the misconduct, because on the admission of the petitioner, he had committed such misconduct. Conduct of an enquiry afresh is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of this case. I am not, therefore, inclined to hold that a disciplinary enquiry should be conducted under Clause.24 of the Standing Orders prior to the imposition of any penalty on the petitioner. It will be open for the respondents to pass orders continuing the petitioner under suspension. The respondent shall consider the cause shown by the petitioner in reply to the notice under Clause.26 (iii) of the Standing Orders in passing final orders. The parties will suffer their respective costs. Issue photo copy of this judgment to counsel on both sides on usual terms.