IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 25579 of 2004(T) PETITIONER(S): 1. N.R.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, S/O.RAMAN PILLAI, IIIRD GRADE OVERSEER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, ETTUMANOOR. 2. C.P.GIREESH CHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, IST GRADE OVERSEER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, MEDICAL COLLEGE, P.O.ULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DEVASWOM CHIEF ENGINEER (I), DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDING, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, PUNALUR. 6. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KOTTARAKKARA. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, SC, TDB FOR R1 TO 6 SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C. NO. 25579/2004. -------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF SUSPENSION ORDER DT. 16-9-2002 TO 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P2 DO. DO. TO 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P3 PETITION FILED BEFORE R1. EXT.P4 PETITION DT. 21-10-2002. EXT.P5 JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO. 32810/2002. EXT.P6 PROCEEDINGS DT. 12-2-2003. EXT.P7 MEMO OF CHARGES DT. 2-1-2003. EXT.P8 REPLY DT. 21-1-2003 FILED BY 1ST PETITIONER.. EXT.P9 REPLY DT. 21-1-2003 FILED BY 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P10 ENQUIRY REPORT. EXT.P11 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. EXT.P12 REPLY DT. 14-11-2003. EXT.P13 REPLY DT. 5-11-2003. EXT.P14 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. EXT.P15 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. EXT.P16 REPLY DT. 10-2-2004. EXT.P17 REPLY DT. 9-2-2004. EXT.P18 BOARD PROCEEDINGS DT. 15-6-2004. EXT.P19 DO. DO. EXT.P20 F.I.R. DT. 12-8-2002. EXT.P21 REPORT DT. 29-11-2005. EXT.P22 REPORT OF CHIEF ENGINEER (GENERAL), KOLLAM. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 25579 of 2004 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 2nd February, 2009. J U D G M E N T Petitioners in this original petition are employees of the Travancore Devaswom Board. 1st petitioner is stated to have retired from service subsequent to filing of the writ petition and the 2nd petitioner is still in service. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them on certain allegations of misconduct involving demand for bribe from one contractor, who was executing certain work on behalf of the Board and driving the contractor to suicide thereby. Originally, they were suspended from service by Exts. P1 and P2. Later on, they were reinstated without prejudice to continuance of disciplinary proceedings . An enquiry was conducted and the petitioners were given opportunity to defend themselves. After taking evidence, the Enquiry Officer submitted Ext. P10 report finding the petitioners guilty of the misconducts alleged against them. The petitioners were given opportunity to make a representation against the enquiry report. Their representations were considered and the findings were confirmed by the disciplinary authority. Later on, the petitioners were given opportunity to show cause against the punishment to be imposed on them. The petitioners filed their representations on punishment also and ultimately, by Exts. P18 and P19, the petitioners were imposed with the punishment of barring of two increments with cumulative effect. The petitioners are challenging Exts.P10, P18 and P19 in this writ petition. 2. The petitioners' contention is against the findings in the enquiry report. According to them, the findings in the enquiry report are perverse and the findings are against the evidence in the enquiry. It is pointed out by the petitioners that the 1st charge against them is that they had, in order to unjustly help the contractor, inflated the estimate amount for the work done by the contractor. The 2nd W.P.C. No. 25579/2004 -: 2 :- petitioner was found guilty of that charge and the 1st petitioner was absolved of the same. According to the petitioners, this fact was disproved by the evidence of the management witnesses themselves. The petitioners point out that Smt. Mahilamani, who was the Engineer in charge of the contract, categorically deposed before the enquiry officer that the estimate was prepared by her and that the measurement of the work was taken by the 2nd petitioner and others. According to the petitioners, in so far as there is no case that the 2nd the petitioner had, in fact, inflated the measurements and the estimate was actually made by the Engineer concerned, that charge could not have been held to be proved against the 2nd petitioner. It is further submitted that since the 1st charge is not proved, charges 2 and 3 being based on the 1st charge alone, in the sense that bribe was demanded for inflating the estimate amount, the finding of guilt in respect of charge nos. 2 and 3 are also perverse. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the findings are mainly based on a suicide note left by the contractor, the authenticity of the same itself was doubted by the police in Ext. P21, since the signature therein differs with that of the admitted signatures of the contractor. For this purpose, counsel for the petitioners relies upon Ext. P21. (In this connection, it may also be noted that the petitioners rely on Ext. P22 in respect of the first charge, which is a submission made by the Chief Engineer who also opined that the allegation of inflation of estimate was misconceived). Therefore, the petitioners would submit that there was absolutely no evidence before the enquiry officer to find the petitioners guilty of the misconducts alleged against them. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. According to them, there was sufficient evidence adduced in the enquiry to prove the charges against the petitioners. Counsel for the W.P.C. No. 25579/2004 -: 3 :- Board would argue that in so far as the first charge is concerned, although the Engineer stated that she had prepared the estimate, the same was based on the measurements taken by the 2nd petitioner and therefore he was responsible for the inflated estimate. As far as the other two charges are concerned, counsel for the Board would submit that the widow and daughter of the deceased contractor had deposed before the enquiry officer that they had seen and heard the petitioners demanding bribe in the house of the contractor. According to the learned counsel for the Board, the evidence of the widow and daughter conclusively proves the fact that the petitioners had, in fact, demanded bribe from the contractor for whatever reason. They also proved the suicide note, which was found in the house immediately after detecting the suicide of the contractor. According to the counsel, the fact that the police had referred the case as a mistake of fact, does not in any way affect the validity of the enquiry. He submits that the police was concerned with the question as to whether the petitioners were responsible for abetting the suicide of the contractor and the question of demanding bribe was not the subject matter of the criminal investigation at all. Counsel points out that it is settled law that acquittal of a delinquent in the criminal case does not ipso facto make the disciplinary proceedings invalid, if going by the standards of evidence required for proving guilt in a disciplinary enquiry, the evidence adduced justifies the findings. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. The petitioners had no case that the enquiry is violative of the principles of natural justice. As such, the validity of the enquiry is conceded. Their only contention is that the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse. The charges against both the petitioners are identical, which are as follows: W.P.C. No. 25579/2004 -: 4 :- W.P.C. No. 25579/2004 -: 5 :- As far as the first charge is concerned, I am of opinion that the contentions of the petitioners are to be upheld in respect of that charge. As pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Mahilamani, the Engineer who was in charge of the contract, had categorically stated before the enquiry officer that the estimate was prepared by her. Of course, she says that the measurements were taken by the 2nd petitioner and others, but, as pointed out by counsel for the petitioners, there is no allegation anywhere that the measurements were exaggerated and therefore the estimate was higher. Admittedly, no proceedings were initiated against the Engineer or others who were also involved in the conducting of the measurements. That being so, it cannot be held with any amount of certainty that the 2nd petitioner was responsible for the exaggerated estimate prepared. W.P.C. No. 25579/2004 -: 6 :- 6. However, notwithstanding the persuasive arguments of the counsel for the petitioners to the effect that once the first charge is found to be disproved, the basis for the second and third charges also goes and therefore the petitioners should have been found not guilty of those charges also, I am unable to accept that contention. Whatever be the reason for demanding bribe, whether it is pursuant to the first charge or not, there is categoric evidence in the enquiry to the effect that the petitioners had gone to the residence of the contractor and had demanded bribe. The widow of the deceased contractor had specifically stated as follows in her evidence, which is quoted in Ext. P10 enquiry report: W.P.C. No. 25579/2004 -: 7 :- Again, the daughter of the deceased contractor had in her evidence stated thus: W.P.C. No. 25579/2004 -: 8 :- It is also brought out in evidence that blank cheques were handed over towards payment of bribe. The petitioners have set up a defence to the effect that the cheques stated to have been issued by the contractor was in repayment of loan amounts taken from the persons mentioned, namely, Balakrishna Pillai and Gopan. It is for persuading the contractor to pay back the loan amount that they had approached the contractor is their version. But the petitioners have no case that such a defence was set up before the enquiry officer by putting questions to the widow and daughter of the contractor accordingly. Therefore, there was at least evidence to the effect that the petitioners had gone to the residence of the contractor and demanded W.P.C. No. 25579/2004 -: 9 :- bribe. Another circumstance which would make the evidence of the widow and daughter more probable is the evidence of a Headmaster of the locality who had stated in his evidence that the contractor had told him that the petitioners have been demanding bribe and as a result, he would be forced to commit suicide. The petitioners had not even suggested that the widow and daughter had any other reason to falsely implicate the petitioners in the case. 7. Of course, regarding the suicide note, counsel for the petitioners would rely on Ext. P21 to show that the genuineness of the same is in doubt. But that does not lessen the importance of the evidence of the widow and daughter, who categorically stated before the enquiry officer that the suicide note was found inside the house immediately after the body was detected. Another important fact is that in Ext. P21, the doubt raised is only regarding the signature and not the handwriting. It is settled law that the fact that a delinquent is acquitted in a criminal case is not a ground to hold that the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated. The standard of proof necessary in a criminal case and in disciplinary proceedings are totally different. In a criminal case, the degree of proof required is proof beyond reasonable doubt. In a domestic enquiry, if the evidence on record satisfies a prudent mind as to the guilt of the delinquent that evidence would be sufficient to hold the delinquent guilty. Further, in the criminal case, actually, no evidence was taken and the matter was referred on the basis of the report of the investigating officer, who was not examined in the enquiry, whereas the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Security of the Devaswom Board who conducted the investigation for the Board had deposed in the enquiry in support of the charges. As such, I am of opinion that Ext. P21 does not in any way affect the findings at least in respect of charge no. 2. A further evidence in support of the finding of guilt W.P.C. No. 25579/2004 -: 10 :- against the petitioners is that in the counterfoil of the cheques issued allegedly as bribe, the name of the 2nd petitioner was specifically mentioned. Of course, it is true that in Ext. P21, the Deputy Superintendent of Police doubts the genuineness of the same also. But, it is a fact that there is a writing in the counterfoil to the effect that the amount was to be given to the 2nd petitioner. The petitioners have no case that anybody had incorporated the same in the counterfoil to spite them. As such, reading the evidence as a whole, I do not find that the findings in Ext. P10 in respect of charge nos. 2 and 3 are wholly without evidence. Again, it is settled law that this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with the findings of fact in a disciplinary enquiry unless it is totally perverse. Sufficiency of evidence is also not a matter which this Court can look into. If there is some evidence, which would appeal to a prudent mind, the same would be sufficient to uphold the enquiry. According to me, in this case, there is more than sufficient evidence to find the petitioners guilty of charges nos. 2 and 3 at least. Therefore, I do not find anything wrong with Exts. P10, P18 and P19. 8. On the other hand, I find that the petitioners have been let off very lightly by the punishment of barring of two increments with cumulative effect. I am of opinion that taking bribe is a heinous crime, which eminently qualifies for a punishment of dismissal from service itself. This would be much more so in the case of the Travancore Devaswom Board, which of late are facing allegations of corruption in all departments, which has been subject matter of investigation by this Court also. I am of opinion that in such a case, the Board ought to have made the petitioners an example to send a message to other employees that such misconducts would be dealt with stringently. Therefore, I am of opinion that the Board will do W.P.C. No. 25579/2004 -: 11 :- well to make amends by taking appropriate proceedings in that regard. I leave it at that. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/