IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 1785 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.17745/2001 Dated 24/03/2009 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER ------------------------ M.G.MOHAN, MAKKAL,VAZHOOR P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY,REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF SURVEY & LAND RECORDS DEPARTMENT, STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SECRETARY, VIGILANCE (A) DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SECRETARY, VIGILANCE (E) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE VIGILANCE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/ 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.No.1785/2009 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 11th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant was the writ petitioner. He was working as Surveyor Grade II under the 2nd respondent. On 24.12.1996, he was suspended from service in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. Later, he was served with Ext.P1 memo of charges dated 4.3.1997. The gravamen of the allegations against him was that he made certain corrections in the basic tax register of Kanjirappally village, to make it appear that the previous owner of the property, which is now owned by Smt.Laila Noordeen, was Kanjirappally Muslim Pally. In fact, the previous owner of the property was her husband Noordeen. He got it from his mother. So, the previous owners of the property were her mother-in-law and later, her husband. The appellant denied the allegations by submitting Ext.P2 reply. The Government thought it fit to get the charges enquired into by WA No.1785/2009 - 2 - the Vigilance Tribunal,Thiruvananthapuram and accordingly, by Ext.P3 order, the enquiry was entrusted to the said Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and taking evidence, filed Ext.P4 report dated 17.10.1998. In Ext.P1 there was an allegation of demand of bribe of Rs.1000/-. That allegation was found in favour of the appellant. The second allegation that he made the correction concerning the previous owner was found against him. The case of the prosecution was that he made the correction in 1994. But, the Tribunal found that the correction was made in 1993. The said finding of the Tribunal was accepted by the Government and the appellant was served with Ext.P5 notice dated 11.1.1999, calling upon him to show cause why the punishment of compulsory retirement from service should not be imposed on him. He submitted Ext.P6 reply. The Government, after obtaining the views of the Public Service Commission and also taking into account the materials on record, passed Ext.P8 order, imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement from service with effect from the date of suspension. Challenging Exts.P4 and P8, the Writ Petition was WA No.1785/2009 - 3 - filed. The learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the impugned orders. Hence this appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant made correction in the basic tax register, is perverse. He pointed out that the allegation against the appellant was that in order to get bribe from Smt.Laila Noordeen, he made correction in the basic tax register. According to the said complainant, the demand was made in 1994. The Tribunal took the view that the appellant made the correction. But, it was not in 1994, as alleged by the prosecution, but in 1993. According to the appellant, the said finding is perverse and does not tally with the allegations in the memo of charges. Therefore, he prayed for allowing the appeal. 3. The learned senior Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that a reading of Ext.P4 would show that Smt.Laila Noordeen got the property by way of a gift deed in 1988 and she was moving for mutation since 1992. Since the date of motion for the same was stated by the complainant as WA No.1785/2009 - 4 - 1994, some apparent discrepancy appeared in the memo of charges and the case of the prosecution. But, in fact, if the facts are closely scrutinised, there is no contradiction, as the motion for mutation started in 1992 itself. 4. It is common ground that there is a correction in the basic tax register. It is also common ground that Kanjirappally Muslim Pally has nothing to do with the property in question and it has no property anywhere near to that property also. So, somebody might have done it fraudulently to harm the interest of the complainant Smt.Laila Noordeen. Then, the point to be considered is whether it is by the appellant. The Tribunal, relying on the evidence of PW3, who was familiar with the handwriting of the appellant, deposed that the correction was made by him. It was deposed that the words “Kanjirappally Muslim Pally” was written in the handwriting of the appellant. The Tribunal has chosen to believe PW3, as the said witness has no axe to grind against the appellant. The possibility of the Tahsildar knowing the handwriting of a Surveyor working under him also cannot be ruled out, as he will be receiving several WA No.1785/2009 - 5 - reports written by the Surveyor as part of the official business off and on. According to the appellant, without the writing being sent for examination by a handwriting expert, it should not have been believed. We think, in every case, for arriving at a conclusion whether the handwriting is that of a particular person, examination by a handwriting expert is not necessary. If other materials on record show that it is written by the appellant, nothing stands in the way of the Tribunal taking that view. So, the contentions advanced by the appellant against the findings in the enquiry are untenable. 5. Further, this Court is not supposed to act as an appellate authority over the findings of the Vigilance Tribunal. This Court would interfere if only it is shown that the impugned finding is perverse or based on no evidence. Since the learned counsel for the appellant raised such a contention, we were constrained to go into the details and express our opinion. In any view of the matter, the Tribunal has taken a plausible view on the evidence before it. Therefore, we find nothing wrong with the Government accepting that report and acting upon it. WA No.1785/2009 - 6 - No procedural irregularity or impropriety has been alleged. In view of the above position, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. nm.