JUDGMENT : The proceedings of the Chairman and Managing Director of the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. (KSEB) has been called into question by the petitioner, who retired as an Assistant Executive Engineer from its services, asserting that it has been issued without competence and without following due procedure. 2. The petitioner contends that the order in question, namely, Ext.P9, has been issued mulcting him with certain liability, however, without following the provisions of the Kerala State Electricity Board employees (Classification Control and Appeal) Regulations 1969. (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations” for case). 3. The petitioner explains that, while he was working as an Assistant Engineer at the Electrical Section, Poochackal, he detected that the electric consumption charges with respect to a Commercial Unit, being run by a consumer by name Sri. Jaimon. V.P, was being computed incorrectly, on account of a wrong multiplication factor being applied for the electric motor in their premises. He says that he, therefore, settled a mahazar on 06.09.2010 and an enquiry was, consequently, commenced by the KSEB into the same. He submits that, on being convinced that the multiplication factor was being applied wrongly ever since 25.01.2006, the consumer was served with a short assessment notice; which however, was challenged by him before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (“Forum” for short), Alappuzha, which was allowed by the said Forum through Ext.P4 order. 4. The petitioner says that the KSEB, thereafter, filed an appeal against the order of the “Forum” before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which modified it, by allowing the KSEB to recover only six months shortfall, holding that the consumer cannot be mulcted with any further liability, since he had neither tampered with the meter, nor committed theft or pilferage of energy. He says that this order was challenged by the KSEB before the National Disputes Redressal Commission, but that instead of pursuing it, it was unilaterally withdrawn by them, as is clear from Ext.P6 order. 5. The petitioner states that, thereafter, the KSEB initiated action against him and certain other officers, alleging that they are responsible for shortfall; and then issued to him Ext.P7 notice on 21.01.2020, asking him to show cause why an amount of Rs.1,10,924/-, along with interest, be not recovered from him. 5. The petitioner states that, thereafter, the KSEB initiated action against him and certain other officers, alleging that they are responsible for shortfall; and then issued to him Ext.P7 notice on 21.01.2020, asking him to show cause why an amount of Rs.1,10,924/-, along with interest, be not recovered from him. The petitioner says that a couple of days or so after Ext.P7 was received by him, he retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 29.02.2020; but that he still made Ext.P8 explanation on 05.03.2020, asserting that he was not responsible for the loss and that he had no role in the application of the wrong multiplication factor as far as the electric meter of the consumer aforementioned is concerned. 6. He submits that he has also stated clearly in Ext.P8 that the electrical meter in question was installed on 6.09.2010, which was six months before he joined the Electrical section, Poochakkal; and therefore, that he could never be held to be aware of the mistake committed by the concerned Sub Engineer, while employing the multiplication factor. 7. After saying as afore, the petitioner added that, after he took charge, he began to make random inspections of all the meters under his charge and that it was thus, on 06.09.2010, he detected the mistake in question and prepared Ext.P1 mahazar. He maintains that no fault can ever be attributed to him because, as per Section 18(2) of the Central Electricity Authority Rules -which is applicable to the KSEB, an officer of his rank has to inspect a consumer meter only once in five years and that he has done so in this case, within the said stipulated time. 8. The petitioner resultantly accuses the Chairman and Managing Director in having issued Ext.P9 order finding him guilty and imposing a liability of Rs.1,10,924/-on him, along with interest, which has been recovered from his retiral benefits, without adverting to his specific contentions in Ext.P8 explanation and without even causing an enquiry, as is mandated under the Regulations. He thus prays that Ext.P9 be set aside and the KSEB be directed to refund the entire amounts recovered from his pensionary benefits, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 9. Sri. He thus prays that Ext.P9 be set aside and the KSEB be directed to refund the entire amounts recovered from his pensionary benefits, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 9. Sri. M.K.Thankappan – learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KSEB, responded to the above saying that a counter affidavit has been filed, along with certain vital documents, in which it has been averred that the petitioner was notified of the liability imposed against him as early as in the year 2010 and that he had not assailed the same at any point of time. He submitted that, as is luculent from Exts.R1(a) and R1(b), the petitioner has been paid his entire pensionary benefits, after adjusting the liability against him; and therefore, that he cannot now impugn Ext.P9, which is only a corollary and consequential action, pursuant to the lapses admitted and found against him. He added that the petitioner cannot, therefore, call into question the recovery made against him because, in Ext.R1(d) dated 30.04.2020, he has given an unequivocal undertaking that he will clear all liabilities outstanding against him or to be found later in audit and agreeing that the same may be recovered from his pensionary benefits. He, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed. 10. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is perspicuous that there are two broad issues involved in this case: (1) Whether the petitioner can be found guilty of the lapses alleged against him by the KSEB; and (2) Whether the recovery made by the KSEB from his pensionary benefits is valid in law. 11. On the first aspect, it is clear from the pleadings on record that the KSEB notified the petitioner of their intention to mulct liability on him only through Ext.P7 show- cause notice, issued on 21.01.2020, which was nearly 10 years after the incident occurred. In Ext.P7, the petitioner had been directed to show cause why an amount of Rs.1,10,924/-, along with interest, being the “apportioned amount of total loss sustained to the Board due to your negligence and dereliction of duty should not be recovered from you” (sic), be not recovered from him. In Ext.P7, the petitioner had been directed to show cause why an amount of Rs.1,10,924/-, along with interest, being the “apportioned amount of total loss sustained to the Board due to your negligence and dereliction of duty should not be recovered from you” (sic), be not recovered from him. It is thus limpid that there was no liability legally fixed against him at any point of time earlier; and that it was vide Ext.P7, that the petitioner was directed to show cause against recovery of the said amounts for the first time. 12. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner preferred Ext.P8, wherein, he clearly stated that he can never be found liable because he himself prepared the mahazar applying the correct multiplication factor and that if he had not done so, this mistake could have never come to light. He also explained therein that the meter in question was replaced six months prior to his appointment at the Electrical Section, Poochakkal; and therefore, that no fault could have been attributed to him in having wrongly applied a multiplication factor to the said meter, which was, in fact, done by the then Sub Engineer who changed the meter. He then further asserted, as I have already said above, that, as per Rule 18(2) of the Central Electricity Authority Installation Regulations 2006, he was only obligated to inspect all meters within his jurisdiction once in five years and that he has done so, which brought the mistake to light. 13. Therefore, when the petitioner specifically and categorically denied all allegations against him through Ext.P8, it was certainly up to the KSEB to cause a proper enquiry and to ascertain whether he could be held responsible for administrative or functional lapses and thus liable for any amount that had been lost by it on account of the application of a wrong multiplication factor, as far as the electric meter of the consumer is concerned. 14. The fact that there was loss caused to the KSEB can, perhaps be safely assumed; but the important issue in this case is not whether there was such loss, but whether the petitioner had any role in it being caused. 15. 14. The fact that there was loss caused to the KSEB can, perhaps be safely assumed; but the important issue in this case is not whether there was such loss, but whether the petitioner had any role in it being caused. 15. As said above, when the petitioner denied all allegations against him through Ext.P8 explanation, the KSEB ought to have conducted a proper enquiry or such other proceeding, to establish the guilt against him, and in the admitted absence of such, a liability could normally be not cast against him. 16. In the case at hand, what one can discern from Ext.P9 is that the Chairman and Managing Director of the KSEB examined Ext.P8 explanation of the petitioner to find it to be unsatisfactory and then immediately proceeded to hold that his guilt is established. As is inescapable from Ext.P9, this has been done without following any procedure, but merely based on the subjective opinion of the Chairman and Managing Director, that the petitioner ought to have been more careful and that he, therefore, must be held liable for the loss to the KSEB, along with other responsible officers/staff. 17. At this time, the learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB – Sri.M.K.Thankappan, tried to bring in a twist, asserting that the Kerala State Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations 1969 was implemented by his client only after 2017 and therefore, that the contentions of the petitioner based on the same, obtain no edifice, since the incident in question happened in the year 2010. 18. I am afraid that this argument on behalf of the KSEB can obtain no anchor whatsoever because, Ext.P7 notice and Ext.P9 order were both issued much after the 'Regulations' admittedly came into effect in the KSEB. Further, even if it is assumed that this contention has any merit, it does not mean that merely because the 'Regulations' had not come into force, the Chairman and Managing Director of the KSEB can act as he pleases, totally unfettered, thus to find an employee guilty and to punish him based on his subjective assumptions. Further, even if it is assumed that this contention has any merit, it does not mean that merely because the 'Regulations' had not come into force, the Chairman and Managing Director of the KSEB can act as he pleases, totally unfettered, thus to find an employee guilty and to punish him based on his subjective assumptions. If such an argument is even to be countenanced, it will lead to a situation where the Chairman and Managing Director of the KSEB can act as a “judge, jury and executioner”, arrogating to himself unbridled disciplinary powers, even without any enquiry being conducted and without following any procedure to find anyone guilty. I can never find favour with this because, even if the 'Regulations' had not been implemented by the KSEB, it was enjoined upon them to follow legally sanctioned procedure before the petitioner could have been condemned as guilty, particularly when he denied it specifically in his Ext.P8 explanation. 19. That so said, there is yet another aspect which has been highlighted by the petitioner in this case. He says that when the consumer in question was charged for the short assessment by the KSEB, he went to the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, which, in fact, obtained no jurisdiction – it being a commercial connection – but that the KSEB did not raise the question of jurisdiction, but allowed the Forum to find in favour of the consumer. He says that even though the State commission, thereafter, found in favour of the KSEB partially -allowing them to recover the loss for a period of six months -they did not pursue the Revision filed by them before the National Commission, even though it had been filed validly; but then chose to proceed against the officers whom, they allege, were responsible for the loss. 20. The afore factual contentions also persuades me to hold in favour of the petitioner because: for one, the assertion of the petitioner that the litigation could not have been allowed to continue before a Consumer Forum appears to be, prima facie, tenable because it is conceded that the electric connection was a commercial one; and for the second, the KSEB themselves decided not to pursue their Revision before the National Commission for reasons that are only known to themselves. However, it is certainly possible to assume that they did so since they thought that it will not be wise to proceed against the consumer; but better to recover the loss from the officers culpable for the same. Even if one finds this line of thinking of the KSEB to be justified, it is still inscrutable how they could have held the petitioner responsible for the loss and guilty of the alleged lapses, without initiating or completing apposite enquiry proceedings, as warranted in law. 21. As I have already said above, instead of doing so, the Chairman and Managing Director of the KSEB arrogated to himself the power to find the petitioner guilty even without an enquiry, based on his subjective evaluation of the involved facts and circumstances, even when they were stoutly disputed. I certainly cannot find favour with this and to that extent, Ext.P9 deserves to be set aside. 22. Once I conclude so, then the further question will be whether the undertaking given by the petitioner in Ext.R1(d) would inure to the KSEB to recover any amounts from him. A reading of the undertaking in question would show that the petitioner had made the same on 30.04.2020, after he had retired from service, so as to facilitate the processing of his pensionary benefits. Obviously, at this time, he had ceased to be an employee of the KSEB and the undertaking was only to empower them to recover any legally ascertained liability, which was outstanding against him or which was to be found later in 'audit', from his pensionary benefits. 23. However, what is involved in this case is not a liability that had already been found validly against him or one that was found later 'in audit'; but one which was fixed against him unilaterally by the Chairman and Managing Director and that too, on 01.10.2020 nearly eight months after he had retired from service. 24. That apart, the undertaking which the petitioner had given was not with respect to the incident of the year 2010, as has been sought to be justified by the KSEB, but solely for the purpose of processing his pensionary papers. 25. 24. That apart, the undertaking which the petitioner had given was not with respect to the incident of the year 2010, as has been sought to be justified by the KSEB, but solely for the purpose of processing his pensionary papers. 25. The liability now fixed against the petitioner by the Chairman and Managing Director, through Ext.P9, does not fall into any of the enumerated eventualities in the undertaking offered by the petitioner; and in any event of the matter, an undertaking given in the year of 2020 cannot relate to an incident that happened in the year 2010, especially when even the documents produced on record by the KSEB do not show that there was any legally sanctioned process adopted before fixing of guilt or liability against the petitioner at that time or any time later. In the afore circumstances, I cannot find Ext.P9 to be worthy in law and therefore, set it aside; with a consequential direction to the KSEB to pay the petitioner the entire withheld sums from out of his pensionary benefits, which shall be done as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that I have set aside Ext.P9 only to the extent to which it relates to the petitioner and not to any of the other officers who may have been found liable in the incident in question; and that the KSEB will be at liberty to proceed against them appropriately de hors this judgment. This writ petition is thus ordered.