IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 2ND ASWINA 1930 OP.No. 23814 of 2000(I) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R. RAJENDRAN, THEKKETHODIYIL, ADICHANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.L.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. GENERAL MANAGER, (PERS) AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, OPERATIONAL OFFICES, GURGAON ROAD, NEW DELHI – 37. 2. AIRPORT DIRECTOR, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL, TRIVANDRUM AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN SRI.V.SANTHARAM SRI.K.G.MOHANDAS PAI THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 23814 of 2000 ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.40117 OF 2000 IN O.P.NO.23814 OF 2000 DISMISSED 24.9.2008 SD/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DTD 21.4.1999. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD 6.5.1999. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 10.8.1999. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 12.7.2000 REJECTING THE APPEAL. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PERSONAL HEARING ON 23.7.1999. EXT.R2(b): COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ACCIDENT. EXT.R2(c): COPY OF THE REPORT BY SECURITY SUPERVISOR. EXT.R2(d): COPY OF THE ROASTER OF DRIVERS FROM 1.1.1999 TO 31.3.1999. EXT.R2(e): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST SRI. V.N. GOMEZ. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.No.23814 OF 2000 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a driver in the service of the 2nd respondent – Airport Authority. On allegations of misconducts, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, in which, by Ext.P3 order, he was found guilty of the misconducts alleged against him and he was imposed with the punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect. His appeal against that order did not meet with success as the same was dismissed by Ext.P4 order by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P3 and P4 orders in this original petition. 2. The petitioner's contention is that the appreciation of evidence by the disciplinary authority as well as the Appellate Authority is faulty. The charge against the petitioner was allowing/permitting an unauthorised person namely, Sri. V.M. Gomez, Traffic Hand to drive AAI(IAD) jeep NO.KL-01 G 2091 on 21/1/99 causing accident and consequent damage to the Authority's property. According to him, he was never on duty in O.P.No.23814/2000 2 Jeep No.Kl-01 G 2091 on the date in question and he never authorised Sri. Gomez to drive the vehicle. He would submit that this is amply proved by log book of the vehicle. He would further submit that from Ext.P4, it is clear that the Appellate Authority has not independently considered the evidence and has not given any reasons for rejecting the appeal. His further contention is that the Appellate Authority has not considered any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in his appeal memorandum. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent for himself and on behalf of the 1st respondent. According to them, as is clear from Exts.R2(a) and R2(b) as well as Ext.P2, the petitioner's version of the incident was never consistent and he gave different explanations at different times. They would further submit that as is clear from Ext.R2(d), which is the driver's duty roster, on the particular day, the petitioner was on duty in KL-01 G 2091. They point out that as is clear from Ext.R2(b), which is the letter written by the petitioner himself that on that particular day, the other vehicle mentioned in Ext.R2(d) was sent for maintenance and that is why he was put in charge of the other vehicle, namely O.P.No.23814/2000 3 KL-01 G 2091. Therefore, according to them, it was amply proved that the petitioner was in charge of the particular vehicle on the particular day. In Ext.R2(a), which is the statement of the petitioner himself, and Ext.R2(b), the petitioner himself admits that on that particular day, the vehicle KL-01 G2091 was actually driven by Sri. Gomez. According to the respondents, the same is sufficient proof of the guilt of the petitioner, which is that the petitioner unauthorisedly permitted Sri. Gomez to drive the vehicle. They would therefore submit that there is no merit in the challenge against Exts.P3 and P4. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. At the outset I must note that in the original petition, the petitioner has no case that the enquiry conducted against him is vitiated for procedural irregularities or violation of principles of natural justice. His only contention is regarding impropriety in appreciation of the evidence in the enquiry. The law on the subject is settled by various decisions of the Supreme Court to the effect that in disciplinary proceedings, sufficiency of evidence is not a matter, which can be looked into by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of O.P.No.23814/2000 4 India, unless there is total lack of evidence or there is perversity of appreciation of evidence. In this case, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was driven by Sri. Gomez. It is proved by evidence that the vehicle was allotted to the petitioner for driving on that particular day. It would be sufficient to prove that the petitioner has unauthorisedly permitted Sri. Gomez to drive the vehicle unless, of course, he, with cogent evidence, proves otherwise. Ext.R2(d) clearly proves that the petitioner was on duty in the vehicle Kl-01 G 2091. Admittedly, that vehicle was driven by Sri. Gomez. The petitioner has not chosen to produce any evidence whatsoever to show that it was under instruction from somebody else that Sri. Gomez drove the vehicle on the particular day. Therefore, I am of opinion that there is sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the petitioner in respect of the charges levelled against him. 5. As far as the contention regarding non- consideration of his contentions in the appeal memorandum are concerned, the petitioner has not chosen to produce a copy of the appeal memorandum and to satisfy this Court as to which of the contentions raised by him, has not been O.P.No.23814/2000 5 considered. Ext.P4 states that the Appellate Authority considered the entire evidence and did not find any reason to differ with the findings in Ext.P3 order. As such the petitioner appears to have canvassed only the sufficiency of evidence before the appellate authority which appears to have been considered by the appellate authority, although the evidence was not discussed separately. In any event, since I myself have considered the matter on the basis of evidence before me and have come to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the petitioner that question is purely academic. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that the petitioner was rightly found guilty of the misconducts alleged against him. Therefore, this original petition fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd O.P.No.23814/2000 6