IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 OP.No. 2302 of 2001(Y) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.MADHAVAN NADAR, PREVENTIVE OFFICER (UNDER SUSPENSION), EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT 'RAJEEV NIVAS', ARIKKAD JUNCTION, NEMOM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) SRI.K.VINODKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, VIGILANCE (A) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SMT.SMITHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO R3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP NO.2302/2001 ORDER ON CMP NO.3902/2001 IN O.P.NO.2302/2001 DISMISSED. 31/07/2008 SD/- (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT OF THE VIGILANCE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 30/01/99. P2 : COPY OF DEPOSITION OF PW1 IN ENQUIRY CASE 1/98 BEFORE THE VIGILANCE TRIBUNAL. P3 : COPY OF DEPOSITION OF PW2 IN ENQUIRY CASE 1/98 BEFORE THE VIGILANCE TRIBUNAL. P4 : COPY OF DEPOSITION OF PW12 IN ENQUIRY CASE 1/98 BEFORE THE VIGILANCE TRIBUNAL. P5 : COPY OF DEPOSITION OF PW8 IN ENQUIRY CASE 1/98 BEFORE THE VIGILANCE TRIBUNAL. P6 : COPY OF DEPOSITION OF PW7 IN ENQUIRY CASE 1/98 BEFORE THE VIGILANCE TRIBUNAL. P7 : COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT NO.1424/A2/99/VIG. DATED 31/05/1999. P8 : COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20/08/99. P9 : COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P.30501/99 DATED 6/12/99 BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P10 : COPY OF ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.99/200/VIG DATED 3/11/2000 BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- O.P. No.2302 of 2001 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 31st day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging Exts.P1 & P10 proceedings issued against him, by which petitioner stands compulsorily retired from service. Petitioner, while working as Preventive Officer was found to be involved in corrupt practice along with A.O.No.1, who was an Inspector, and A.O.No.3, who was a Guard. The main corrupt practice alleged against the petitioner along with the said two accused is that they were collecting massive amounts from the accused involved in excise offences under the guise of compounding fee but appropriated the collections to themselves. In fact, in many cases, even after collection of compounding fee, the offences were not compounded and the accused were charge sheeted later. The Vigilance Court, vide Ext.P1 proceedings found that three out of ten charges levelled against petitioner stand proved and consequently recommended punishment against petitioner. The appointing authority after issuing notice to petitioner issued Ext.P10 order of compulsory retirement to petitioner from the date of his suspension, which was on 11/08/1997. However, petitioner had roughly three years service from the date of termination. The original petition is O.P.No.2302/2001 -2- filed challenging the findings in the Vigilance Court report and consequential order passed by the Government, vide Ext.P10, of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. 2. I have heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 3. I have gone through Ext.P1, findings of the Vigilance Court wherein it is seen that charge No.1 is found against all the accused. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was not directly involved in the alleged transaction of collecting Rs.25,000/- from a club in Thiruvananthapuram towards compounding fee and retaining the amount among the accused, it is clear from his official position as Preventive Officer, that he was in- charge of registering crime occurring in the area. A.O. Nos.1 to 3, constituted a team of excise officials in-charge of the area, where the offences enquired into by the Vigilance occurred. PW12, who is a department witness, clearly stated that petitioner as Preventive Officer was bound to maintain the crime occurrence register. It is the finding of the Vigilance Court that as against the normal practice of collecting compounding fee through challans to be remitted directly by the accused in the Treasury, the accused including the petitioner collected compounding fee in cash, and in the crime file, O.P.No.2302/2001 -3- column for referring the matter for compounding was left blank. Obviously, at the time of collection of compounding fee of Rs.25,000/- from the Club, the accused including the petitioner did not intend to compound the offence. In fact, they are not denying receipt of the amount and refund of the same after several months to the person from whom it is collected. Even though the witness turned hostile, the Vigilance Court found that the statements given by the witness to the Vigilance police stands confirmed through documentary evidence and even after turning hostile, the evidence proved the guilt of the accused. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the Vigilance Court on charge No.1. 4. Charge Nos.8 & 10 proved against petitioner and other two accused are of the same type, where the witness also confirmed to the Vigilance Court that after collecting compounding fee of Rs.1,000/- each, the accused did not compound the offence but retained the money with them. I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the Vigilance Court based on evidence. Learned Government Pleader also submitted that there is specific allegation against all the accused that they were systematically involved in corrupt practice of collection of massive amounts from O.P.No.2302/2001 -4- offenders under the guise of compouding fee and they were running money lending business with the said amount. In any case, since the Vigilance Court found on evidence that the petitioner was involved in corrupt practice based on evidence, there is no justification for this Court to reverse such findings. 5. The next issue raised is with regard to the punishment imposed on petitioner. While petitioner and accused No.1 were punished with compulsory retirement, 3rd accused was given a lighter punishment because he was only a Guard and he had around 10 years of service. Having regard to the gravity of the offences proved against accused Nos.1 & 2, I do not think the punishment of compulsory retirement is harsh, excessive or arbitrary. Moreover, the first accused does not challenge the same punishment imposed on him. In the circumstances, the original petition is dismissed as devoid of any merit. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg