R.Bangaru v. The Engineer-in-Chief,Water Resources Organisation andChief Engineer (General),Public Works Department,Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 09.06.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.NO.32174 of 2006R.Bangaru.. Petitioner Vs.The Engineer-in-Chief,Water Resources Organisation andChief Engineer (General),Public Works Department,Chepauk, Chennai-600 005... Respondent This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ ofcertiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedingsNo.CII(3)/7004/90-62 dated 8.8.1997 of the respondent herein and toquash the same. For Petitioner: Mr.S.VenkatramanFor Respondent: Mr.P.Gurunathan, GAORDERThe petitioner has filed O.A.No.7453 of 1997, seeking tochallenge an order of the respondent, dated 8.8.1997. In view ofthe abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to thiscourt and was renumbered as W.P.No.32174 of 2006.2.On notice from the Tribunal, the respondent has filed areply affidavit, dated 8.1.98. During the pendency of the O.A, thepetitioner did not have the benefit of any interim order. By theimpugned order, the petitioner was imposed with a punishment ofstoppage of increment for 3 years with cumulative effect, whichwill also have the effect on his pension.3.At the relevant time, the petitioner was working as aJunior Engineer at North Section Thanjavur I Sub Division. He wasarrested by the Vigilance and Anti corruption Police, Thanjavur on30.4.90 for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.3000/- from onecontractor R.M.Baskaran through the assistance of one Durairajan,who was an another contractor. On the complaint given by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ R.M.Baskaran, the petitioner and the another contractor Durairajanwere arrested and the amounts were recovered from them. Thepetitioner's case was sent for an Enquiry by the Commissioner forDisciplinary Proceedings, Chennai. 4.The Disciplinary Tribunal, by a memo dated 15.12.93framed charges against the petitioner. The Tribunal, afterconsidering the explanation of the petitioner and after consideringthe evidence of 7 witnesses for the department and 17 documentsfiled for the department as well as the 2 defence witnesses,including the petitioner and on perusing 9 material objects, cameto the conclusion that the first part of the charge, namely thatthe petitioner demanded bribe was proved. In page 23 of thefindings, the Tribunal held as follows:"It is available in the evidence of P.W.2, thatthe A.O., after a prolonged negotiations, reduced hisdemand to Rs.3,000/- and directed PW2 to receive thecheques from Thiru Durai, an Ex-Contractor of PWD,after paying the bribe amount of Rs.3,000/- to him. PW2 agreed half-heartedly to act according to thedirection of the A.O. Comparing the cheque amount, thedemand seemed to be abnormal. The evidence of PW 2revealed that the disproportionate demand was due tosome personal motive which could not be brought tosurface by PW 2. I could only infer the reasons for theabnormal demand of the A.O., was that he might haveallowed PW 2 to undertake substandard work in the saidexecution of work or the A.O. might have thought ofclosing the contractorship of the PW 2 by indirectmeans or he might have made Thiru Durai, the Ex-Contractor to act as his tout. Anyhow the evidence ofPW 2 have to be believed as there was no personalenimity between the two on record.The demand of the A.O., is well established bythe evidence of PW 3, the accompanying official witness(PW 3). When Pws 2 and 3 met the A.O., and sought hisinstructions regarding payment of bribe money, theA.O., had entertained them in a pleasing manner andinstructed PW 2 to handover the bribe money to ThiruDurai and to get back his cheques. Had the A.O., been afair officer, there was no need for him to entertain asettlement by himself at the office which according tohim was an outside affairs between the two contractorsviz., PW 2 and Ex-Contractor Thiru Durai as alleged bythe A.O.The evidence of PW 3, Thiru Balu disclosed thatthe acts and dialogue of the A.O., towards them at thetime of their meeting at his office on 30.4.90, thedate of trap, before the payment of bribe to ThiruDurai was in no way that he was interested in settlinga dispute, that was alleged to have been taken placebetween PW 2 and Thiru Durai. Instead, it is disclosed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ more on personal benefits than a transaction in whichthe A.O., was not at all connected as alleged by him.Thus the demand of the A.O., is well established.Taking the totality of circumstances intoconsideration, the first part of the charge relating tothe demand of bribe of Rs.3,000/- by the A.O., isestablished by the prosecution. Therefore, I hold thefirst part of the charge is proved against the AccusedOfficer. "5.Though Mr.S.Venkatraman, learned counsel for thepetitioner made elaborate submissions regarding the perversity inthe findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal and wanted this court tocome to a different conclusion on the proven charge No.1, thiscourt is unable to agree with the said submission. In adepartmental enquiry, the standard of proof required is onlypreponderance of probabilities as held by the Supreme Court inMazdoor Sangh v. Usha Breco Ltd. reported in (2008) 5 SCC 554. Itis necessary to refer to para 33 of the said judgment, which is asfollows:"33. Before a departmental proceeding, thestandard of proof is not that the misconduct must beproved beyond all reasonable doubt but the standard ofproof is as to whether the test of preponderance ofprobability has been met. The approach of the LabourCourt appeared to be that the standard of proof on themanagement was very high. When both the parties hadadduced evidence, the Labour Court should have borne inmind that the onus of proof loses all its significancefor all practical purpose."6.Once it is held that if there is a proper enquiry inwhich legal evidence is let in, the scope for judicial review overthe penalty imposed is very limited. This ratio has been laid downby the Supreme Court in a recent decision in V.S.P. v. GoparajuSri Prabhakara Hari Babu reported in (2008) 5 SCC 569. It isnecessary to refer the following passages found in paras 20 and 21,which are as follows:"20. The jurisdiction of the High Court in thisregard is rather limited. Its power to interfere withdisciplinary matters is circumscribed by well-knownfactors. It cannot set aside a well-reasoned order onlyon sympathy or sentiments. (See Maruti Udyog Ltd. v.Ram Lal; State of Bihar v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra; SBIv. Mahatma Mishra; State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi; Stateof M.P. v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Uttar Haryana BijliVitran Nigam Ltd. v. Surji Dev.)21. Once it is found that all the proceduralrequirements have been complied with, the courts wouldnot ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishmentimposed upon a delinquent employee. The superior courtsonly in some cases may invoke the doctrine of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proportionality. If the decision of an employer isfound to be within the legal parameters, thejurisdiction would ordinarily not be invoked when themisconduct stands proved. (See Sangfroid Remedies Ltd.v. Union of India.)7.In the light of the above, there is no case made out forinterfering with the penalty imposed on the petitioner. Hence, thewrit petition stands dismissed. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarvvkToThe Engineer-in-Chief,Water Resources Organisation andChief Engineer (General),Public Works Department,Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.W.P.NO.32174 OF 2006 SSR(CO)RVL 10.06.2009