Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
A Mohammed Ramees Shuhasad vs Ut Of Lakshadweep on 12 May, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH,
ERNAKULAM
Original Application No. 181/00002/2025
Tuesday, this the 12th day of May, 2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Braj Mohan Agrawal, Member (A)
A. Mohammed Ramees Shuhasad, aged 25 years,
S/o. Attal UP.P, Ex Multi-Tasking Staff,
Services Section, Secretariat, Kavaratti,
Residing at Athanachammada House, Kavaratti Island,
Lakshadweep, Pin - 682 555. - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. V.B. Hari Narayan)
Versus
1. Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti Island,
Lakshadweep, Pincode - 682 555, rep. by is Administrator.
2. Secretary (Services), Lakshadweep Administration,
Secretariat-Services Section, Kavaratti Island,
Lakshadweep, Pincode - 682 555.
3. Director (Services), Lakshadweep Administration,
Secretariat-Services Section, Kavaratti Island,
Lakshadweep, Pincode - 682 555. Respondents
(By Advocate:Ms. Sreekala K.L., Sr. Panel Counsel)
This Original Application having been heard on 19.01.2026, the
Tribunal on 12.05.2026 delivered the following:
Sebastian Antony 2026.05.12 16:46:20+05'30'
2
ORDER
Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member -
The sole applicant, who was a Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) under the 2nd respondent Lakshadweep Administration, challenges Annexure A12 order by which he was terminated from service pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him and also Annexure A13 order, by which the appeal preferred by him before the appellate authority challenging Annexure A12 was rejected.
2. According to the applicant, he had joined the service of the Lakshadweep Administration as an MTS on 9.1.2019. While so, on the basis of a complaint laid by a third party alleging irregularities in issuing entry permits to Lakshadweep Islands, a vigilance inquiry was conducted. In the investigation it was found that the office was issuing permits without any police clearance and omission from the part of ADM's office might have resulted in revenue loss. Accordingly, Annexure A1 inquiry report was submitted by the Superintendent of Vigilance to the Directorate recommending registration of crime and also for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the applicant and other persons. It was alleged that commissions were allegedly received through the bank Sebastian Antony 2026.05.12 16:46:20+05'30' 3 account of the applicant and transferred to one P. Muradsha, the Office Superintendent. It was alleged they had committed offences punishable under IPC, Prevention of Corruption Act and Rule 14 of Lakshadweep, Minicoy and Amini Islands (Restrictions on Entry and Residence) Rules, 1967 [hereinafter referred to as LMAI (RER) Rules, 1967]. Based on Annexure A1 report of inquiry, Annexure A2 FIR was registered as crime No. 20 of 2022 against three persons including the applicant and the said Muradsha.
3. Pursuant to it, the applicant was arrested and was later released on bail. Annexure A3 memo of charges dated 4.10.2022 was issued to him initiating disciplinary proceedings. It was alleged in the memorandum of charges that while working as the MTS at Collectorate, Kavaratti, during the period 1.2.2019 to 11.5.2022, he committed grave misconduct by involving in misappropriation/ embezzlement of Government fund and irregularities in the issuance of entry permits. It was alleged that he had violated the various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Rule 14 of LMAI (RER) Rules, 1967 and thereby committed grave misconduct and acted in a manner unbecoming of a public servant, thereby violating clauses (i), (ii), (iii), Sebastian Antony 2026.05.12 16:46:20+05'30' 4
(vi), (xiv), (xv), (xviii) of Sub Rule (1) of Rule (3) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
4. Annexure A4 reply was submitted by the applicant denying the various allegations. Thereafter a brief written statement was submitted by the presenting officer as Annexure A5 before the inquiring authority., Annexure A6 is written brief of defence submitted by the applicant before the inquiring authority. It was stated that the allegation of receiving commission was totally baseless as the vigilance inquiry report or the presenting officer has not stated the name of any person from whom he had received the commission. Both sides adduced evidence before the inquiring authority. Ultimately after inquiry, Annexure A7 report was submitted alleging that the applicant was involved in the alleged irregularities. The applicant submitted his reply as Annexure A11. However, on the basis of the report, major penalty of dismissal from service was issued as Annexure A12. The applicant submitted a representation before the appellate authority, which was rejected by Annexure A13 order. Aggrieved by Annexures A12 and A13, the applicant has approached this Tribunal. The contention of the applicant before the Tribunal was that Annexures A8 and A9 bank account Sebastian Antony 2026.05.12 16:46:20+05'30' 5 statements of the applicant were not let in evidence and without any material on record, a wrong finding was arrived at by the authority holding that the applicant was guilty of the misconduct. It was contended that it was a case of absolutely no evidence. Hence, the OA was filed seeking the following main reliefs:
"A. To set aside Annexure A12 order dated 18.12.2024 issued by the nd 2 respondent dismissing the applicant from service.
AA. To set aside Annexure A13 order dated 28.4.2025 issued by the appellate authority upholding the Annexure A12 order dated 18.12.2024.
B. To direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the applicant in service with back wages."
5. A detailed reply statement was filed by the respondents essentially contending that the OA was not sustainable in so far as the statutory remedy was not resorted to. Appellate authority was not moved and even before that, the applicant had approached this Tribunal. It was contended that based on the evidence placed on record through the police investigation, the vigilance report and other materials placed by the prosecution before the inquiring authority, the allegation against the applicant stood established. It was contended that sufficient materials were placed to establish the guilt of the applicant. The authority of this Sebastian Antony 2026.05.12 16:46:20+05'30' 6 Tribunal was limited in going into the sufficiency of the evidence adduced. Hence, rejection of the OA was sought.
6. Heard both sides and examined the records.
7. The learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that absolutely no material was placed before the disciplinary authority to establish the misconduct of the applicant. It was contended that none of the witnesses produced gave any testimony indicating that the applicant was involved in any of alleged transactions. None of the persons who had paid money of the applicant was examined. No unauthorised amount was received into the account of the applicant as Annexures A8 and A9. The bank records were not placed before the inquiring authority to supplement the allegations levelled against the applicant. It was further contended that as an MTS he was never assigned with any duty in connection with the issuance of entry permits which was usually done at the level of Office Superintendent and LDC. Payments made by Muradsha, the Office Superintendent, into the bank account of the applicant was for purchasing house hold articles for him. It was further contended that on the basis of the materials on record, even if it was found that any misconduct was Sebastian Antony 2026.05.12 16:46:20+05'30' 7 established, the punishment imposed on the applicant, that too, directing that his termination from service will be a disqualification for any other employment, was too harsh.
8. Answering this contention, the learned Standing Counsel for the Lakshadweep Administration vehemently contended that there are sufficient materials on record, to establish the guilt of the applicant and the sufficiency of the materials on record was not within the domain of this Tribunal. To supplement the contention that scope of judicial review was limited, the learned counsel relied on the decision reported in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors. - (AIR 1996 SC 484). In that case, it was held by the Supreme Court that judicial review was not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the matter in which the decision is taken. Power of judicial review was meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches was necessarily correct in the eye of law. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct on a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether Rules of natural justice are complied with. Regarding the proportionality of punishment, the learned counsel further Sebastian Antony 2026.05.12 16:46:20+05'30' 8 relied on U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Suresh Chand Sharma [2010 (6) SCC 555]. In that case while considering the question of proportionality referring to a catena of decisions, the Supreme Court held that the punishment should always be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. However, it was further added that in a case of corruption/misappropriation, the only punishment was dismissal.
9. Being conscious of the judicial limitations, we venture to consider whether there are any materials on record to establish the misconduct alleged against the applicant and whether this is a case of "no evidence". The proceedings were initiated pursuant to Annexure A1 report of the Superintendent of Police, Anticorruption Bureau, UTL Administration dated 26.3.2022. The said authority, on the basis of preliminary inquiry concluded that, records were not properly maintained in the ADM's office regarding granting of entry permits/official permissions. It was prima facie found that the office of ADM, UTL, Kavaratti had not maintained the registers regarding entry permits/official permissions. The ADM's office had also not maintained the file movement register and despatch registers in connection with issuing permits. It was also found that as per Rule 5 of LMAI (RER) Rules, 1967, application should be in the Sebastian Antony 2026.05.12 16:46:20+05'30' 9 prescribed form at a cost of Rs. 15/- and the above office was issuing permits without any police clearance on a request in letter head of the Hon'ble Member of Parliament, political parties, various departments and Panchayath, etc. It was found that a total of 2,382 of such official permits were issued during the period 2021. It was presumed that it was for about 16,674 persons and if multiplied with 7 persons as average for each permit, a sum of Rs. 9,04,400/- for 14 months have been approximately lost to the revenue. It was also found that as per the bank statement of Muradsha a sum of Rs. 11,25,500/- was received from 18.04.2021 to 04.03.2022, possibly for preparing applications and arrangements for issue of entry permits during the past six months. It also showed that he had received Rs. 50,000/- from one H.K. Mohammed Kasim in five transactions and Rs. 1,12,000/- from Lakshadweep Tours in multiple transactions. It was noticed that in the case of the said Muradsha, he had directly received the amounts to his bank account and in some cases he received the amounts via the applicant's account with criminal misconduct. It was also stated that the applicant had received commissions through his bank account and transferred the same to Muradsha on the same day. Accordingly, inquiry was recommended Sebastian Antony 2026.05.12 16:46:20+05'30' 10 against the applicant along with Muradsha. Therefore, Annexure A2 Crime No. 20/2022 was registered by the Kavaratti Police Station for various offences punishable under IPC as well as under PC Act.
10. In this regard, it is essential to refer to the charge levelled against the applicant by Annexure A3. It reads as follows:-
"Article - I - Shri A. Mohammed Ramees Shuhasad, MTS, Collectorate, Kavaratti (under suspension) while working as Multi Tasking Staff in Collectorate, Kavaratti during the period from 01.02.2019 to 11.05.2022, committed gross misconduct and has been involved in misappropriation/embezzlement of government fund and in irregularities in issuing entry permit(s) to persons for visiting UT of Lakshadweep for which he was arrested on 11th May, 2022 in Crime No. 20/2025 of Kavaratti Police Station."
Along with Annexure A3, the list of documents and list of witnesses were also furnished.
11. In Annexure A4 reply, the applicant denied the entire allegations of charges. He had stated that he was not involved in any transaction and that he was not a party to the alleged embezzlement. He denied the entire allegations, except that a crime was registered as Crime No. 20/2022 for various offences punishable under PC Act and IPC.
12. Before inquiry, witnesses were examined and documents were let in. The presenting officer in his statement had contended that on verifying Sebastian Antony 2026.05.12 16:46:20+05'30' 11 the records, it was found that the applicant had two bank accounts; one at the State Bank of India, Kavaratti Branch and another at the Canara Bank, Kavaratti. As per the bank statement of the applicant during the period from February 2019 to May 2022, an amount of Rs, 4,14,850/- was seen credited either by UPI or cash, other than salary. Out of it, Rs. 1,21,650/- was the remittance from Muradsha through UPI/Online. As per the bank statement of charged officer in Canara Bank for the period from February 2019 to May 2022, an amount of Rs. 71,000/- was seen credited either through UPI or cash deposit, other than salary. Out of it, Rs. 23,000/- was remittance from Muradsha through UPI/Online. It was also alleged that the charged officer's bank account showed significant transactions beyond salary, indicating misconduct.
13. Relying on the materials on record, including the statement given by the witnesses, the inquiry officer arrived at a definite conclusion that records were not properly maintained in the office of ADM in relation to the issuance of permits. It was also held that several materials were on record to show that several unauthorised permits were issued. In the course of inquiry, materials were brought in to show that the applicant Sebastian Antony 2026.05.12 16:46:20+05'30' 12 had several bank transactions with Muradsha against whom serious allegations were raised. The various remittances made by Muradsha into the account of the applicant much exceeding his income was held to be doubtful. It is pertinent to note that in this regard, in the statement of defence submitted by the applicant before the authority, copy of which was produced as Annexure A6, he had specifically admitted that he had several bank transactions with Muradsha. His defence as seen recorded at paragraph 5 of Annexure A6 was that Muradsha under whom the applicant was working was utilising the service of charged officer for his private purposes also. He stated that he used to send him money for buying petrol and other items for his vehicle and other domestic needs, which also included loans from him. Prior to this, Muradsha had given his ATM card to charged officer for taking out money from the ATM counter to buy items from the shops as the applicant was not having ready cash with him at that point of time. Unfortunately, the charged officer entered wrong code multiple times and the transaction failed. Thereafter, Muradsha used to remit the required amount through Gpay to charged officer's bank account, so that he could draw it and buy the items and return the balance to Muradsha.
Sebastian Antony 2026.05.12 16:46:20+05'30' 13
14. In the light of above materials, the defence set up by the applicant that bank records evidenced by Annexures A8 and A9 records were not brought into evidence is unsustainable. There are materials touching on the various monetary transactions between the applicant and Muradsha. The applicant has no dispute regarding it. On the other hand, he admitted the various monetary transactions and projected a justification that they were meant for purchasing household articles for the Office Superintendent. This seems to be highly suspicious and unbelievable in so far as it cannot be believed that huge amounts were being transmitted for purchasing provisions and other items for the applicant. Further, no such defence was set up at the initial stage when he was called upon to answer the charge sheet. This defence seems to have been set up only when materials were placed before the authority to show that several monetary transactions had been entered into between the applicant and Muradsha. Further, there is absolutely nothing on record to show that any of the money remitted to the account of the applicant was returned either in kind or in cash.
15. There is another crucial evidence of one witness. SW8 had stated Sebastian Antony 2026.05.12 16:46:20+05'30' 14 that the police had enquired about the relevant documents required for verifications before issuance of entry permits. He had also stated that some permits/required documents on the scrutiny were not issued processed by him as dealing assistant. SW3 had stated that he had given money to Muradsha @Rs. 2,000/- for permit against tourist payments. He had given approximately 3 to 4 lakhs to the applicant during one year prior to the registration of the FIR in the case. The money was given in cash personally to the applicant after receiving his whatsapp message confirming that the permits were ready. He usually visited the residence of the applicant in the evening and collected the permit after giving money by cash as bribe. One Mohammed Kasim, SW4 had stated that he had sent money to Muradsha.
16. These materials show that evidence was let in before the inquiry officer to evidence that the applicant was entering into monetary transactions, which could not be justified by the applicant by cogent explanations. In the above circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the inquiry officer and confirmed by the disciplinary authority cannot be found to be without any material at all. In the light of seriousness of allegations, the question of proportionality of punishment does not arise. Sebastian Antony 2026.05.12 16:46:20+05'30' 15
17. Having considered the entire facts, we are of the definite view that the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that he was punished and the misconduct was sought to be established without any evidence, is not sustainable. The Original Application fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Dated 12th May, 2026)
(BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL) (JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
"SA"
Sebastian Antony 2026.05.12 16:46:20+05'30'
16
Original Application No. 181/00002/2025
APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 - A copy of the enquiry report F. No. 1/2022-
V&ACU/43 dated 26.3.2022 issued by Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Unit.
Annexure A2 - A copy of the FIR in crime No. 20/2022 on the files of District and Sessions Court Kavaratti dated 10.5.2022. Annexure A3 - A copy of the memorandum F. No. 12/22/2022- Services/2038 dated 4.10.2022 together with the articles of charges and statement of imputation.
Annexure A4 - A copy of the representation dated 14.10.2022 submitted by applicant before the 2nd respondent. Annexure A5 - A copy of the written brief statement by presenting officer dated 20.6.2024.
Annexure A6 - A copy of written brief of defense by applicant dated 2.7.2024.
Annexure A7 - A copy of the inquiry report dated 8.10.2024 issued by the Inquiring Authority.
Annexure A8 - A copy of the account statement dated 29.6.2024 of the applicant with Canara Bank, Kavaratti.
Annexure A9 - A copy of the account statement dated 8.3.2022 of the applicant with State Bank of India, Kavaratti.
Annexure A10 - A copy of the work order F. No. 1/3/2017-LR/Estt for entry permit dated 6.7.2021.
Annexure A11 - A copy of request dated 12.11.2024 submitted by applicant before 2nd respondent.
Sebastian Antony 2026.05.12 16:46:20+05'30' 17 Annexure A12 - A copy of the order F.No. 12/22/2022-Services/1958 dated 18.12.24 issued by 2nd respondent.
Annexure A13 - A copy of the order F.No. 12/22/2022-Services/dated 28.4.2025 issued by Administrator (Appellate Authority).
Annexure MA1 - True copy of the order dated 28.4.2025 issued by Administrator (Appellate Authority).
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1(a)- The True copy of the F.No. 1/2022-V&ACU/43 dated 26.3.2022.
Annexure R1(b)- The True copy of the service vide order dated 13.4.2022 F.No. 12/22/2022-Services.
Annexure R1(c)- The True copy of the memorandum dated 4.10.2022 F.No. 12/22/2022-Service/2038.
Annexure R1(d)- The True copy of the order dated 9.1.2023 F.No. 12/22/2022-Services/69.
Annexure R1(e)- The True copy of the inquiry report dated 8.10.2024. Annexure R1(f)- The True copy of the OM F. No. 12/22/2022- Services/1695 dated 29.10.2024.
Annexure R1(g)- The True copy of the order dated 18-12-2024 F.No. 12/22/2022-Servics/1958.
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
Sebastian Antony 2026.05.12 16:46:20+05'30'