M.G. MOHOAN, MAKKAL, VAZHOOR P.O v. STATE OF KERALA

BY ADV. SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. DIRECTOR OF SURVEY & LAND RECORDS DEPARTMENT, STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SECRETARY, VIGILANCE (A) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SECRETARY, VIGILANCE (E) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THE VIGILANCE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 17745/2001. ---------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF MEMO OF CHARGES DT. 4-3-1997. EXT.P2 WRITTEN OBJECTION DT. 11-4-1997. EXT.P3 ORDER DT. 17-10-1997. EXT.P4 ENQUIRY REPORT DT. 17-10-1998. EXT.P5 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT. 11-1-1999. EXT.P6 OBJECTION DT. 15-2-1999. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 17745 of 2001 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 24th March, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, while working as Surveyor Grade II in Taluk Office, Kanjirappally, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him as recommended by the Vigilance Department. The Vigilance Tribunal conducted an enquiry and submitted Ext. P4 report finding the petitioner guilty of the charge levelled against him and recommended the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. Pursuant to the same, the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on the petitioner by Ext. P8 order. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P4 enquiry report and Ext. P8 order of punishment in this original petition.

The petitioner raises two contentions. The first is that originally the Public Service Commission did not concur with the proposal of punishment of compulsory retirement in so far as according to the Public Service Commission, the normal rules of evidence had not been followed by the Vigilance Tribunal while conducting the enquiry. The second contention is that the conclusion of the Vigilance Tribunal is perverse.

2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.

The charge against the petitioner is that the petitioner has corrected revenue records unauthorisedly to the detriment of an owner of a property by scoring off the name of the land owner and writing therein “Kanjirappally Muslim Pally”. According to the petitioner, the petitioner disowned the handwriting appearing in the record in question and therefore without getting the handwriting verified by an expert, the Vigilance Tribunal went wrong in coming to the conclusion that the handwriting was that of the petitioner. As far as the objection of the Public Service Commission is concerned, I am of opinion that the same is prima facie unsustainable. The Public O.P. No.17745/01 -: 2 :- Service Commission also held the view that without getting the handwriting verified, the Vigilance Tribunal could not have arrived at the conclusion of guilt of the petitioner. That is because of a misunderstanding of law of disciplinary proceedings. In disciplinary proceedings, strict rules of evidence as per the Evidence Act are not applicable. All what is required in disciplinary proceedings is an objective satisfaction of the enquiring authority about the guilt of the delinquent.

At the relevant time, the petitioner was dealing with the record in question. Two witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution before the Vigilance Tribunal, deposed to the effect that they know the handwriting of the petitioner and verified the handwriting appearing in the particular record as that of the petitioner. Of course, one of them in cross examination went on to say that he cannot with certainty say that it is the handwriting of the petitioner. But, earlier, the very same witness had , in his statement, categorically asserted that it was the handwriting of the petitioner.

5. I have gone through Ext. P4 report of the Vigilance Tribunal. The fact that another person would have come to a different conclusion on the same evidence is no reason for this Court to interfere with the finding of fact in such an enquiry in exercise of the discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In any event, on going through Ext. P4, I am unable to come to the conclusion that the conclusion arrived at by the Vigilance Tribunal is O.P. No.17745/01 -: 3 :- in any way perverse. Without a finding of perversity, I cannot under law interfere with such findings. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the original petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Tds/ Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.