IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2010 / 25TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25383 of 2010(S) -------------------------- OA.773/2007 of CAT,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.V.ANILKUMAR,AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.M.VASU,(RETD.SECTION ENGINEER/WORKS/SOUTHERN RAILWAY/OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ERNAKULAM JUNCTION),RESIDING AT NO.53,MAIN ROAD, RIGH SIDE OF FIRE STATION GANDHI NAGAR, COCHIN-682020. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA; REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS,RAIL BHAVAN,NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHAIRMAN,RAILWAY BOARD,RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER,SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE,PARK TOWN.P.O, CHENNAI-3. 4. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY/CONSTRUCTION,EGMORE, CHENNAI-8. 5. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHER RAILWAY,TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM-14. 6. THE MEMBER ENGINEERING,RAILWAY BOARD RAIL BHAVAN,NEW DELHI. BY ADV.SMT.SUMATHI DANDAPANI, SC FOR RAILWAYS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.25383 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel for the Railways. 2.The writ petitioner, then a Railway employee, was found to have manipulated materials in relation to an examination where his wife was also an applicant for employment with the Railways. The misconduct attributed to him centred around an examination conducted in the S.N.College for Women, Kollam. Though the petitioner was not deputed as invigilator by the Railways, he was alleged to have unauthorisedly entered into the room of the examination centre, secured a question booklet of the said examination from the Railway Supervisor and tick marked answers in the Railway booklet in WPC.25383/10. 2 association with two other persons during the conduct of the examination. This was allegedly done inside the control room and the material on which the answers were tick marked was allegedly delivered to the petitioner's wife Padma, who was a candidate. The material was transmitted to her through a peon in collusion with the Welfare Inspector who was entrusted with supervision of the examination. 3.On the aforesaid allegation, a detailed enquiry was conducted. On conclusion of enquiry, the competent authority proceeded to impose punishment, which, in our view, was wholly trivial. The superior authority entered on a review and recommended the writ petitioner's removal from service. While matters were so pending, the Central Administrative Tribunal, without interfering in any manner with the findings, wanted the establishment to consider the petitioner's appeal/revision. In considering that, the competent authority reduced the punishment proposed, to be one for compulsory retirement. WPC.25383/10. 3 4. The writ petitioner challenged the aforesaid action before the CAT in the original application from which this writ petition arises. We have perused the specific grounds raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal in his original application. They do not contain any specific challenge regarding the findings and quality of appreciation of evidence by the enquiry authority. At any rate, the findings of the enquiry authority were not criticized as cryptic, perverse or arbitrary as could be visited either under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under any jurisdiction on interference with such matters. Obviously, there was no ground, in our view, even for the Tribunal to have interfered with the findings in the enquiry. This leads to two questions. Firstly, there is complaint of the writ petitioner that there was inordinate delay in the whole proceedings. This matter has been specifically considered by the Tribunal; reasons have been stated and it has been concluded that the delay cannot be attributed to the Railways only and the matter cannot be interfered with on that ground. The next is the question of WPC.25383/10. 4 proportionality of the punishment. Having regard to the gravity of the allegations against the petitioner, we are even tempted to think that an order of compulsory retirement was itself one that provided the petitioner some relief rather than he be removed from service. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find our way to hold that the decision of the Tribunal is vitiated on any ground, warranting interference under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution. We also record the submission of the learned senior counsel for Railways that the other persons who were involved in the issue have suffered compulsory retirements and also cut in pension. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed in limine. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, Judge. kkb.18/08.