IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 34050 of 2004(S) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- C. VELYUDHAN, UPPER DIVISION CLERK (SG) REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER OFFICE BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.VELLAYANI SUNDARARAJU RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-I, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE ADDITIONAL CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSONER (H.R), AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BHARISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, 14, BHIKHAJ CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON 11/02/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.34050/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT OF ENQUIRY AUTHORITY DT. 27.11.2000 TO 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 17.7.01 OF 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE APPEAL OF PETITIONER D.T 14.5.01 TO 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 13.12.01 OF 3RD RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE OA. NO.381/02 FILED BY PETITIONER. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA. NO.381/02 DT. 11.10.04. OF CAT. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE OFFICE PROCEEDINGS DT. 31.7.97 OF APF TO PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R2(a):- COPY OF THE LETTER N.EO/ACM 'LTC' 98 DT. 5.2.98. EXT.R2(b):- COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET VIDE MEMO NO.KR/R.C'S SECTT (VIG.) 99, DT. 4.2.99. EXT.R2(c):- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 10.3.99. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss C.N. Ramachandran Nair & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).NO.34050 of 2004-S - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. The challenge in the writ petition is against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.381/2002. In the Original Application, the petitioner challenged the imposition of punishment against him. 2. The petitioner was an Upper Division Clerk (Senior Grade) working under the second respondent. The substance of the charge against him is that he had fraudulently withdrawn money from the office for availing L.T.C. facility for the block year 1994-97 to visit New Delhi along with his family members and thus violated clauses (i) and (iii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 read with Regulation 27 of the E.P.F. (Staff & Conditions of Service) Regulation, 1962. It was also alleged that he had fabricated a Leave Travel Concession bill with a motive to defraud the Organisation, for an amount of Rs.5,084/-. Ext.P1 is the memo of charges. 2. After a due enquiry, by Ext.P2, a penalty of reduction of pay by five stages with cumulative effect, was imposed. The petitioner even though WPC 34050/2004 -2- filed an appeal challenging the same, the appeal was dismissed as per Ext.P4. Against these proceedings, he filed O.A. No.381/2002. 3. The Tribunal, after perusing the enquiry file also, came to the conclusion that the punishment was imposed after conducting a proper enquiry by following the principles of natural justice. A reading of the order of the Tribunal shows that the files relating to the enquiry proceedings and other documents were called for by the Tribunal and the Tribunal was convinced that the L.T.C. bill submitted by the applicant was not supported by the relevant documents. The Tribunal also found that there was no fault in the disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, the Tribunal refused to interfere with the rationale of the punishment also. 4. We heard learned counsel on either side. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had actually availed of L.T.C. facility and had travelled to Delhi and returned back thereafter. Learned counsel submitted that the above case pleaded by the petitioner was supported by relevant documents also. It was also pointed out that even though he wanted to examine one or two witnesses to prove his stay in Delhi, because of denial of adequate opportunity, that could not be done. It was also pointed out that the imposition of punishment is too harsh, as the petitioner had re-paid the entire money with penal interest as instructed by the WPC 34050/2004 -3- Organisation. It is therefore submitted that at any rate, the punishment is disproportionate and it has got serious impact on the retirement benefits sanctioned to him. He has retired from service already. 5. The argument that the charges are not proved, is not correct. A reading of Ext.P2 and the appellate order, Ext.P4 will show that the charges have been proved in the enquiry. In fact, it was found that the bills were fabricated by him. What was produced by him along with the final bill, was xerox copies of Railway tickets. The onward journey was on 3.8.1997. When the office verified with the Asst. Commercial Manager (Reservation), Southern Railway, they confirmed that the tickets claimed by the petitioner for his onward journey conducted on 3.8.1997, was cancelled on 1.8.1997 and an amount of Rs.2,482/- was refunded. It was therefore concluded that since onward journey was not conducted, the return journey cannot obviously be conducted. It was hence concluded that the bill is a fabricated one. 6. A reading of Exts.P2 and P4 will show that the authorities have arrived at these conclusions based on the evidence and the documents before them. The petitioner could not substantiate his case that he had actually travelled to Delhi on the crucial day by availing L.T.C. facility. As rightly held by the Tribunal, there are no vitiating circumstances also as WPC 34050/2004 -4- regards the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry. Further, the Tribunal had called for the relevant documents and files which have been perused by it. 7. The next argument raised is regarding the proportionality of the punishment. On this aspect also, the Tribunal was not satisfied. True, that the punishment will have an impact on the retirement benefits of the petitioner. But, we find that in Ext.P2 it was found that the charges are very grave in nature which have been proved beyond doubt and it was also observed that exemplary punishment of dismissal from service was necessary. But, taking into account the fact that the charged official has put in nearly 28 years of service and that it will be very harsh to put him on the street at the time of retirement and having considered the difficulty that may be caused to the family, a lenient view was taken and thus the authority thought of imposing a penalty of reducing the pay by five stages with cumulative effect. The Tribunal also found that the punishment is not disproportionate in view of the grave nature of the charges and as there is loss of integrity. 8. We are conscious of the fact that the power of judicial review is very limited in such cases. It is not a case where the Tribunal has acted perversely. We will not be justified in substituting our own views to that of the disciplinary authority. The punishment cannot be said to be one WPC 34050/2004 -5- shocking the conscience of the court, warranting interference. We find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. (C.N. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ WPC 34050/2004 -6- C.N. Ramachandran Nair & & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . No. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 10th January, 2008.