IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 16TH MAGHA 1931 OP.No. 31044 of 2001(U) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- DR.C.D. JOHN, SENIOR VETERINARY SURGEON, VETERINARY HOSPITAL, CHUNKAKUNNU P.O., KANNUR. BY ADV. MR.M.BALAGOVINDAN, MR.P.M.JOSEPH. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, VIGILANCE (R) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, DIRECTORATE OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1, R2 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.DILEEP MOHAN. R3 BY ADV. MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 31044/2001-U ORDER ON C.M.P. NO.50544/2001 IN O.P. NO. 31044/2001 CLOSED 05/02/2010. SD/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.6710/B2/88/VIG. BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXT.P1 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VIGILANCE TRIBUNAL IN ENQUIRY CASE NO.3/90 EXT.P5: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE MEMO NO.2940/B2/93/VIG. BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A1(1)15089/94/GW OF KPSC. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE MEMO NO.4922/B2/98/VIG. BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.46/2001/VIG. FROM THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 31044 of 2001 ================== Dated this the 5th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T While working as a Veterinary Surgeon in the Animal Husbandry Department of the Government of Kerala, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for contracting a second marriage while his first wife was living, contrary to the conduct rules applicable to Government servants in the services of the State. A vigilance case was registered and the Government, ultimately referred the matter to the Vigilance Tribunal for conducting an enquiry into the charges of misconduct. The Tribunal conducted an enquiry and, by Ext.P4 enquiry report, found the petitioner guilty of the misconduct of contracting a second marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting, without permission from the Government violating Rule 93(1) of the Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1960. Based on the same, originally one punishment was proposed by reduction in rank for 7 years. Later on, another show cause notice was issued for imposition of the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. Ultimately by Ext.P9 order, the Government imposed on the petitioner the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 enquiry report, Exts.P5 and P7 show cause notices and Ext.P9 order of punishment. o.p.31044/01 2 2. The petitioner does not dispute the validity of the enquiry as such on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice or procedure prescribed. The petitioner challenges the findings in the enquiry as against the evidence adduced before the Vigilance Tribunal. According to the petitioner, the alleged second wife and her close relatives gave evidence to the effect that no marriage was contracted between the petitioner and the alleged second wife. Therefore, according to the petitioner, there was no evidence in the enquiry to hold the petitioner guilty of the alleged misconduct against him. The petitioner, therefore, submits that the entire disciplinary proceedings against him are vitiated for want of proof of the misconduct. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent disputing the contentions of the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader, on the basis of Ext.P4 enquiry report, points out that there was more than sufficient evidence to find the petitioner guilty. He submits that the marriage register of the church where the petitioner's marriage with the second wife was proved by the vicar of that church, which contained the entry relating to that marriage and the vicar who solemnized the marriage was also examined. In the Register of Marriages, the names of the petitioner, the second wife, her parents and witnesses were recorded. There was no dispute that the names were that of the petitioner and the second wife. The register contained o.p.31044/01 3 their signatures also. He points out that the Tribunal has given very cogent reasons as to why the evidence of the second wife and her relatives could not be accepted. He points out that the second wife had a son aged seven years whose birth corresponds with the date of marriage. While giving evidence, the second wife refused to divulge the name of the parent of that child. The second wife who is an educated lady denied having admitted the seven year old child to a school, which is against normal human conduct. The Vigilance Tribunal rightly found it unbelievable. According to the learned Government Pleader, all these evidence are more than sufficient to prove the guilt of the petitioner. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. I have gone through Ext.P4 report of the Vigilance Tribunal. As pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, there was more than sufficient evidence adduced before the Vigilance Tribunal to prove the guilt of the petitioner. The Marriage Registrar of the church where the marriage was solemnized was proved in evidence. The identity of the persons shown in the marriage register is that of the petitioner and the second wife which was not disputed. The identity of the parents mentioned therein was also not disputed. In fact a letter addressed to the vicar by the second wife pointing out an agreement registered with the Sub Registrar for contracting the marriage was o.p.31044/01 4 referred to. That agreement between the petitioner and the second wife was also proved by examining the Sub Registrar who registered the agreement. The Vigilance Tribunal had given very cogent reasons for the conclusion arrived at. I find no infirmity whatsoever in the reasons for the conclusion. It is settled law that in disciplinary enquiries the standard of proof is not that of beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases or even preponderance of probabilities as in civil cases. What is required is only the standard of proof required for a reasonable man who would look at the same evidence to come to the conclusion. If a reasonable man would find the delinquent guilty on the evidence available in the enquiry, that would be sufficient to hold the delinquent guilty. In the above circumstances, I am of opinion that there is absolutely no infirmity in the findings of the Vigilance Tribunal and that the guilt of the petitioner was sufficiently proved, as required in a disciplinary enquiry. 6. The counsel for the petitioner would argue that the penalty imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct alleged to have been committed by him. That also I am unable to countenance. The petitioner has even put the future of a small child in peril by denying the paternity of that child in the process of denying the marriage with the second wife itself. I have no doubt in my mind that the petitioner rightly deserves the punishment of o.p.31044/01 5 compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner. 7. However, by virtue of the stay of implementation of the order of punishment, granted by this Court, the petitioner continued in service and he has attained the age of superannuation already. In the above circumstances, taking a lenient view, I direct that the salary paid to the petitioner for the period he continued in service beyond the date of compulsory retirement need not be recovered from him. For all other purposes, he would be deemed to have compulsorily retired from service in accordance with Ext.P9 order of punishment. He would be entitled to all other service benefits only accordingly. The original petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 31044 of 2001-U ================== J U D G M E N T 5th February, 2010