IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 25856 of 1998(C) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.NARAYANAPILLAI, VILLAGE ASSISTANT, THRIKKAKARA NORTH, KOONAMTHAI, EDAPPALLY P.O., RESIDING AT KOKKAPPILLIL HOUSE, VELLOORKUNNAM MARKET P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1) STATE OF KERALA, REP: BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE (D) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2) THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3) THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.T.B.REMANI. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.1.2008, THE COURT ON 18.1.2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP.NO.45361 OF 1998 IN OP.NO.25856 OF 1998-C. DISMISSED. 18.1.2008 Sd/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: Copy of the memo of charges dtd.25.1.1994 received by the petitioner. P2: Copy of the reply dtd.30.11.1995 to the memo of charges submitted by the petitioner. P3: Copy of the proceedings of the Board of Revenue (LR) Trivandrum dtd.28.9.1996. P4: Copy of the representation dtd.31.1.1997. P5: Copy of the order dtd.22.4.1998 issued by the Government of Kerala. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- Nil. ( true copy ) P.A. TO JUDGE. kvs/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P.No.25856 of 1998-C. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of January, 2008. J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the orders imposing punishment and the appellate order confirming the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. He was working as a Village Assistant, when pursuant to the preliminary enquiry he was issued with Ext.P1 memo of charges. After he submitted his reply to the memo of charges as per Ext.P3 he was imposed with a punishment of barring increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect. This was challenged by the petitioner in appeal which was rejected by Ext.P5. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings rendered by the disciplinary authority which were upheld by the appellate authority are totally unsupportable. It is argued that the charges cannot be said to be proved and the petitioner is innocent of the matter. The learned counsel therefore pleaded for exonerating him from the charges. 3. There are five charges in Ext.P1. The charge No.1 is that, O.P.No.25856 of 1998-C. 2 while working as Village Assistant in Kakkanad village (formerly Thrikkakara south village) during the year 1985 the petitioner prepared false sketch mahazar in 8 land assignment files of Taluk Office, Kanayannoor relating to the assignment of poramboke land in Kakkanad village. The second charge is that, he prepared the sketch and mahazar in these cases which involved benami transactions, cases in which the assignee has no possession in these lands and the cases in which the lands are not included in the list of assignable lands and reserved for public purposes. It is alleged that the petitioner has committed misconduct with ulterior motive and for illegal financial gains. In fact, in the explanation the tenor of the argument is that in order to obey the instructions from the higher authorities to supply sufficient processed assignment applications, all the Village Assistants were forced to prepare sketch mahazar hastily and in discharging the duties hastily there may have some omissions or remissions which may be excused. It is also submitted by the petitioner in Ext.P2 that, all the mahazars in 8 cases mentioned in the list have been prepared by applying his mind after inspecting the site and conducting enquiry with genuine diligence without any ulterior motive and for illegal financial O.P.No.25856 of 1998-C. 3 gains. 4. After considering the explanation it was found in Ext.P3 that the petitioner is guilty of the charges. The remarks of the District Collector, Ernakulam were also considered before entering such a finding. 5. In the appellate order Ext.P5 all the contentions have been considered in detail. It was found by the appellate authority that the lands were assigned to persons whose annual family income was above Rs.3,000/-, benami transactions were also included which reveals that the petitioner prepared the sketch mahazars without proper enquiry. It has been clearly found, while rejecting his contentions, that if proper enquiry was conducted the facts would have come to notice then and there. The actions of the petitioner resulted in non-realisation of land value and giving assignment at concessional rate. 6. It is seen from the statement of facts contained in the Original Petition that a separate consequential order has been passed on 28-4-1997 to the effect that the period of suspension in respect of petitioners and another employee be treated as duty for all purposes except for any pay and allowances which will be limited to that of O.P.No.25856 of 1998-C. 4 subsistence allowances already paid. Any way the said issue was not found in favour of the petitioner and no reliefs have been sought in that regard also herein. 7. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to persuade me to set aside the findings of fact by raising a contention that the same are totally perverse, I am not inclined to accept the said contention for more than one reason. This is a case where even going by the explanation the petitioner has sought to justify the action and took up a specific contention that proper enquiry was conducted while preparing the mahazars in 8 cases. It was found by the disciplinary authority that this contention is not correct. There were even benami transactions and cases where the assignment proceedings were without sufficient justification. Therefore, it is not a case where the disciplinary authority has not applied its mind to the charges raised and to the explanation offered by the petitioner. The appellate authority has also considered the question elaborately. This Court cannot enter into a totally different finding on evidence without sufficient justification. Going by the facts noted already, it cannot be said that the findings are so perverse warranting interference under Article 226 of the O.P.No.25856 of 1998-C. 5 Constitution of India. Both the fact finding authority and the appellate authority have considered the merits of the charges and other attendant circumstances in the right perspective. This Court will not be justified in substituting the above said findings on the mere plea of the petitioner that there was no evidence to support the above charges. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner wanted this Court to re-assess the evidence, I am afraid, the said course cannot be adopted by this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless there are other compelling reasons like want of materials or non- consideration of relevant materials etc. None of these circumstances are present here. For all these reasons, I hold that Exts.P3 and P5 are not liable to be interfered with in these proceedings. The writ petition is consequently dismissed without any order as to costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-