Karnataka High Court
Sri V Gopinath Padiyar vs Union Of India on 20 January, 2014
Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer, H.S.Kempanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.KEMPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.30444 OF 2013 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. V. GOPINATH PADIYAR
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. V.GANAPATHI PADIYAR
R/AT "SRI DURGA"
NO.39/1-4, 2ND MAIN
TATA SILK FARM
BASAVANGUDI
BANGALORE - 560 004 .... PETITIONER
(BY SRI A.S.NAVEEN, ADV.)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN
RAFI MARG
NEW DELHI - 110 001
2. THE ADDITIONAL CENTRAL PROVIDENT
FUND COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA & GOA STATES
2
"BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN"
NO.13, RAJARAM MOHANROY ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 025
3. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT
FUND COMMISSIONER -1
REGIONAL OFFICE
NO.S (1) I CROSS
I STAGE, PEENYA
BANGALORE - 560 058 ... RESPONDENTS.
(BY SRI HARIKRISHNA S HOLLA, ADV., FOR R-2 & R-3;
CGSC FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN
O.A.NO.356/2012 DATED 09.04.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO
ALLOW THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.OA.356/2012 WITH
ALL CONSEQUENTIAL SERVICE AND MONETARY BENEFITS
FLOWING THEREFROM.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, H.S.KEMPANNA. J., PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though this matter is listed for Preliminary hearing, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 3
2. This petition is directed against the order dated 09.04.2013 passed in O.A.No.356/2012 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, challenging the order of dismissal from service passed by the respondents.
3. The petitioner was appointed on 22.01.1990 to the post of Lower Division Clerk in the 3rd respondent organization. He was promoted as Social Security Assistant (TBBB) and subsequently, the said post was upgraded to Senior Social Security Assistant (for short hereinafter referred to as Senior S.S.A). During the year 2007, he was working as Senior S.S.A in Accounts Section - 8 in the Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Bangalore. He was responsible for processing of claims for withdrawals etc., received from the establishments 4 allotted to this task. One Sri. Suresh Babu, who is a Provident Fund subscriber, submitted an application for processing EPF withdrawal for a sum of Rs.50,000/- vide his Account No.KN/25568/5050, from his PF account through his employer-M/s. C-Bay Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore. The said amount was required by him to meet his own marriage expenses. The said application had been received in the PF office on 16.03.2007 and the same was received by the petitioner on 20.03.2007. On 21.03.2007 the petitioner prepared a covering letter for returning the application and got it approved by one Sri. Lingappa Gowda, Section Supervisor, Accounts Section - 8 on 22.03.2007, stating that applicant Suresh Babu is not entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.50,000/- as he had not completed 07 years of service. In this connection, it was alleged against the 5 petitioner that he had manipulated the claim of the applicant - Suresh Babu by violating certain provisions of the manual of accounting procedure - IIA & IIB, by preparing parallel worksheet with an intention to take illegal gratification from Suresh Babu - the applicant. On 26.03.2007 petitioner completed the process of application for withdrawal of PF of Suresh Babu and the matter was pending for issuance of cheque before Head Clerk on 27.03.2007. He demanded a sum of Rs.2,400/- from Suresh Babu - the applicant, who had filed application for withdrawal of the amount, which after bargaining was settled at Rs.1,800/-. The said Suresh Babu, who was unwilling to pay illegal gratification, approached the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) with a complaint, in pursuance of which, a case was registered against the petitioner, and trap was laid on 27.03.2007 by CBI. In pursuance 6 of the trap laid, he was prosecuted for having received illegal gratification before the Sessions Judge for CBI cases, Bangalore, in C.C.No.129/2007. On the very basis of the same, Departmental Enquiry was also initiated, articles of charges were issued by the respondents and an explanation was also sought from the petitioner as to whether he would admit or deny the articles of charges. The petitioner denied the articles of charges. Thereafter, Disciplinary Authority got held an enquiry by appointing Enquiry Officer. Enquiry Officer on holding enquiry came to the conclusion that the articles of charges leveled against the petitioner had been duly proved and accordingly, submitted his report on 21.01.2010 to the Disciplinary authority. The Disciplinary Authority issued show- cause notice to the petitioner calling upon to file his statement and on receipt of the same, the Disciplinary 7 Authority passed the order on 31.10.2011 terminating his services vide Annexure-A9.
4. The petitioner being aggrieved of the said order preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which dismissed the same by order dated 18.05.2012, which is at Annexure-A11. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred O.A. before the Tribunal, which by the impugned order has dismissed his application confirming the order of termination.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that in the enquiry conducted against the petitioner it has not been proved that the petitioner had demanded and accepted the illegal gratification from the complainant. He further contended, the alleged illegal gratification had not been accepted by him as sought to be made out in the 8 enquiry. On the other hand, it was thrusted on him forcibly. The enquiry officer without appreciating the same has committed an error in holding that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification has been proved and accordingly charges leveled against the petitioner are also proved which is not sustainable; it is to be set aside. Consequently, the order of termination also deserves to be set aside.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order.
7. According to the Articles of Charges leveled against the petitioner he had demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.1,800/- from the complainant Sureshbabu to do an official favour inasmuch as to release the amount of Rs.50,000/-. It is the case of the petitioner that he had not demanded and accepted 9 illegal gratification as sought to be made out in the Articles of Charges leveled against him. On the other hand, the said illegal gratification was thrusted on him in the canteen. Immediately on service of Articles of charges he was called upon to submit his defence statement. In the defence statement which is filed before the authority no whisper has been made by him that the alleged illegal gratification found on his person was thrusted on him. On the other hand, the material on record reveals the petitioner has demanded and accepted the illegal gratification from the complainant Sureshbabu on the date of trap in the departmental canteen. No satisfactory explanation has been given by him for the said amount at the time of trap. The very fact of the illegal gratification found on his person in our view is sufficient to hold in the absence of any other explanation as submitted by the 10 counsel, to hold that he had demanded and accepted the same. The report of the enquiry officer reveals that the petitioner has demanded and accepted the illegal gratification from the complainant on appreciation of the evidence before him. The Appellate Court and the Tribunal on appreciation of the entire materials have also come to the right conclusion in holding that the petitioner had demanded and accepted illegal gratification and accordingly the Articles of Charges leveled against him have been proved. Incidentally we may mention that this petitioner has been convicted and sentenced in the criminal case launched against him before the CBI Court at Bangalore. It is well settled position of law that the degree of proof in a departmental enquiry stands on a different footing than that of the degree of proof in a criminal Court. In that view of the matter the Enquiry Officer was right in 11 holding, on the materials placed before him, that the Articles of Charges have been proved against the petitioner.
8. In the light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, we are of the view the impugned order of the Tribunal does not call for interference. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE HJ*