KSEB Senior Assistant Must Face Trial Over Alleged Misappropriation And False Ledger Entries: Kerala HC Upholds Chief Engineer’s Sanction

The petitioner, the second accused in two prosecutions arising from alleged misappropriations at the KSEB Electrical Section, Chowara, challenged orders dismissing his discharge applications under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

The alleged conduct related to 2001 and 2002, when he was Senior Assistant; the prosecution alleged that he acted in conspiracy with the cashier and that false entries were made in the Consumer Personal Ledger (CPL)

The petitioner argued that the Chief Engineer lacked authority to grant sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), and that his supervisory duties did not provide a basis to prosecute him for misappropriation

The Special Judge rejected the discharge applications, relying, among other things, on the petitioner’s role in preparing the CPL and his alleged failure to identify short collections.

Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act requires prior sanction from the authority competent to remove the public servant from office

Under Section 239 Cr.P.C., the discharge question is assessed on the prosecution record; the court may proceed to frame charges where the materials disclose a prima facie case warranting trial

The order also records the Special Judge’s conclusion that Section 197 Cr.P.C. sanction was not required because the accused were not public servants removable only by or with the sanction of the Government

The High Court noted that Zakeer Hussain v. State of Kerala [2026 ICO 123] did not govern because the sanction challenge was raised before trial commenced

The High Court held that the KSEB delegation of powers authorised the Chief Engineer (HRM) to act as disciplinary authority for cadres up to and including Assistant Executive Engineer and equivalent categories.

It therefore found the Chief Engineer competent to remove the petitioner and to grant sanction under Section 19(1)(c), rejecting the challenge to the sanction

On discharge, the Court considered the allegations that the petitioner had to prepare the CPL from duplicate bills, could compare those bills with daily demand statements, and had made false CPL entries concerning collections.

Those materials, in the Court’s view, supported the Special Judge’s conclusion that the petitioner’s role and alleged inaction warranted trial

It upheld the sanction as having been granted by the competent authority and found sufficient prima facie material to sustain the refusal of discharge.

Both criminal revision petitions were dismissed, and any interim stay was vacated