Madras High Court
N.Raghunathan vs High Court on 10 June, 2011
Bench: Elipe Dharma Rao, M.Venugopal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :10.06.2011
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice ELIPE DHARMA RAO
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice M.VENUGOPAL
W.P. Nos.2549 of 2006 and 38511 of 2005
N.Raghunathan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2549 of 2006
R.Alageswaran .. Petitioner in W.P.No.38511 of 2005
vs.
1. High Court, Madras
rep.by its Registrar General
High Court Campus
Chennai
2. Registrar General
High Court Madras
High Court Campus
Chennai .. Respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.No.2549 of 2006
1. High Court of Judicature at Madras
represented by
The Hon'ble Registrar General,
Chennai 600 104. .. Sole respondent in
W.P.No.38511 of 2005
Prayer in W.P.No.2549 of 2006: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for the concerned records from the respondents, quash the order of the 2nd respondent bearing Order:ROC No.52/2000-Con.B2 dated 22.12.2004 and the order of the 1st respondent bearing Order:ROC No.52/2000.Con.B2 dated 9.9.2005 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with full backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.
Prayer in W.P.No.38511 of 2005: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records relating to the order made in ROC No.52/2000-Con.B2 dated 9.9.2005, confirming the order of dismissal passed in ROC No.52/2000-Con.B2 dated 22.12.2004 on the file of the respondent and quash the same and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in the service of Tamilnadu Judicial Ministerial Service with all consequential benefits and pass such further or other orders.
For petitioner : Mr.Balan Haridas in W.P.No.2549 of 2006
Mr.R.Singaravelan for Mr.N.S.Sivakumar
in W.P.No.38511 of 2005
For respondents : Mr. A.Jenasenan, in both W.Ps.
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.VENUGOPAL,J.) W.P.No.2549 of 2006:
The petitioner has projected this Writ Petition seeking the relief of Writ of Certiorari in calling for the records from the respondents and to quash the order of the 2nd respondent in ROC No.52/2000-Con.B2 dated 22.12.2004 and the order of the 1st respondent in ROC No.52/2000.Con.B2 dated 9.9.2005 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent and resultantly to direct the respondents in reinstating the petitioner in service with full backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits and pass such order or directions.
2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Reader in High Court, Madras on 5.7.1989. He was promoted as Assistant. In March 1992, he was transferred to the Principal District Court, Dindigul wherein he worked till the year 2000. Subsequently, he was transferred to Additional Sub Court,Salem and he joined at Salem on 14.7.2000.
3. While he was serving at Salem, he received a memo from the 2nd respondent/Registrar General, High Court, Madras enclosing the report of the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, High Court dated 6.6.2000, in and by which he was required to offer his explanation.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the Report given by the Vigilance Officer was in respect of an allegation against R.Balasubramaniam, the then Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul in the matter of transfer, promotion and appointment for monetary consideration under his influence or Alageswaran, Sheristadar (writ petitioner in W.P.No.38511 of 2005).
5. The other allegation relates to the receipt of valuable gifts at the time of inspection by R.Balasubramaniam, the then Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, (in short ADJ-Cum-CJM) Dindigul. Also the allegation is that the said ADJ-Cum-CJM received household requirements from him, Alageswaran and other staff members. Added further, the 4th allegation is that the said ADJ-Cum-CJM demanded to arrange tourist car through staff at their expenses. The 5th allegation pertains to the said ADJ-Cum-CJM misusing his official position to induce the Principal District Munsiff, to write the judgment at his command. The 6th allegation is in respect of misuse of office by Alageswaran (writ petitioner in W.P.No.38511 of 2005).
6. The stand of the petitioner is that the very allegations do not, in any way, relate to him. He submitted his explanation on 6.12.2000 to the Vigilance Officer's Report. In his explanation, he had mentioned that allegations were not pointed towards him. He also demonstrated that the Vigilance Officer had dragged his name unnecessarily, when he had nothing to do with the allegations levelled against the said Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate and Alageswaran. The petitioner takes a plea that for the transfer made in the office of the Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, he had no role to play as he was working in the office of the Principal District Judge, Dindigul. Moreover, he had no role to play in any appointment or promotion and that some statements furnished by some employees were vague and without any basis. He had also stated that he had nothing to do with the so called common fund. The allegation that he supplied and serviced the Principal District Judge was also without any material. In short, he demonstrated that the allegations levelled against him had nothing to do with him inasmuch as he was working only as an Assistant.
7. The 2nd respondent/Registrar General issued a charge memo dated 24.9.2000 levelling four charges against the petitioner as per Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Out of the four charges, the enquiry officer held that the last charge was not proved. The substance of the 1st charge, relating to the petitioner, is that while he was working as an Assistant, Principal District Court, Dindigul, he along with Alageswaran, then Sheristadar of Court of Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul (writ petitioner in W.P.38511 of 2005) demanded and received various amounts from the staff members on behalf of the then ADJ-Cum-CJM in regard to 52 transfer of staffs during the period from 31.3.1998 to 14.9.1999 and handed over to R.Balasubramaniam. The 2nd charge, according to the petitioner, is that he along with Alageswaran, (writ petitioner in W.P.No.38511 of 2005) demanded and collected a sum of Rs.300/- from the last grade servant, Rs.850/- each from Assistants in two monthly instalments and Rs.500/- each from Junior Assistant in two monthly instalments in the name of common fund, in various courts in Dindigul District on behalf of R.Balasubramaniam, Principal District Judge, Dindigul to meet out the expenses of the officer during the annual inspection for Subordinate Courts.
8. The 3rd charge levelled against the petitioner is that he along with Alageswaran (writ petitioner in W.P.No.38511 of 2005) influenced the staff members of various courts in Dindigul District to provide valuable gifts, costly clothes and other items to R.Balasubramaniam during his inspection.
9. As regards the aforementioned charges, the petitioner furnished his explanation dated 27.11.2003 denying the charges. Later, the 2nd respondent/Registrar General, High Court nominated the enquiry officer as per the communication dated 15.12.2003. A common domestic enquiry was held as regards the allegations levelled against R.Balasubramaniam, Alageswaran and himself. The enquiry began on 23.1.2004 and it was held on various dates. In all, 12 witnesses were examined and on his side, one witness was examined. On the side of the Department, Exs.P.1 to P.31 were marked and Exs.D.9 to D.11 were marked. The enquiry report dated 17.4.2004 was forwarded to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent/Registrar General, High Court, Madras together with letter dated 5.7.2004 and his comments were sought for on the enquiry report. Three charges levelled against him were held to be proved and the 4th charge was held to be not proved. He offered his comments on 21.7.2004 to the Enquiry Report and stated in detail that the findings pertaining to three charges were not proved.
10. The 2nd respondent/Registrar General, High Court, Madras by an order dated 22.12.2004, without considering his objections in their proper perception, imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent/High Court, Madras represented by Registrar General on 20.1.2005. His appeal was rejected without considering the various grounds raised by him as per the order dated 9.9.2005.
11. The petitioner comes out with a specific case that in regard to the 1st charge pertaining to the transfers effected by the Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul during the period from 31.3.1998 to 14.9.1999, he was serving as an Assistant in the Principal District Court, Dindigul and therefore he had no knowledge about the transfers. Further more, he had not served under R.Balasubramaniam during the said period. As such, the question of R.Balasubramaniam being influenced by the petitioner does not arise.
12. The petitioner contends that in the enquiry also 12 witnesses were examined and they have deposed that they had no personal knowledge about the allegations levelled against him. Also, they did not know who had given money to him or to Alageswaran (writ petitioner in W.P.38511 of 2005) for obtaining the transfer and as a matter of fact, they could not even name one such instance. In short, most of the witnesses had not spoken anything against him in regard to the 1st charge. Even the witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.9 and P.W.10 to P.W.12 had not deposed anything against him in respect of the 1st charge. The evidence of P.W.4 was not pointed out against him since she could not give any particulars about the so called transfer effected through him for monetary consideration. From the evidence of P.W.4, it is candid that he had no personal knowledge and also he could not even name any staff who had given money for obtaining transfer through him. The transfer aspect of Karpagasundari and Pandi spoken to by P.W.4 was not the subject matter of enquiry.
13. The petitioner submits that no individual, who received transfer for monetary consideration, was examined. Added further, any person aggrieved by such alleged transfer was not also examined. In enquiry, no evidence was placed as regards the alleged demand or receiving amount for transfers in question. Therefore, there was no evidence in regard to the 1st charge.
14. The petitioner contends that the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority without any legal evidence held that the 1st charge was proved against him. The finding, as a matter of fact, recorded by the enquiry authority is that the Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul had passed orders transferring 52 staff members to various courts, since they had not paid the money as bribe, as demanded, through the petitioner and Alageswaran. Accordingly, the 1st charge was held to be proved, when, in fact, there was no available legal evidence whatsoever, in this regard.
15. The petitioner pleads that there was no explanation, whatsoever, for not examining any one of the staff, who obtained transfer allegedly by paying money or any of the aggrieved staff, who were affected by such alleged transfer. No endeavour was made to secure the staff or to obtain statement from them. Per contra, the staff, who had no connection with the issue were examined, which would unerringly point out the hollowness of the charge.
16. The petitioner's stand is to the effect that when none of the transferred employees had declined to tender evidence or statement, the question of relying upon hearsay evidence would not arise and that the so called evidence relied on by the enquiry authority could not be considered as evidence in the eye of law.
17. The petitioner submits that the 2nd charge levelled against him was also not proved in the enquiry because of the fact that the evidence of P.W.4 was quite contrary to Charge No.2, which alleges that a sum of Rs.300/-, Rs.500/- and Rs.850/- were collected from various cadres of the staff towards common fund. The evidence of P.W.4 was to the effect that a sum of Rs.10/- was ordinarily collected and Rs.20/- was collected occasionally. That apart, even though P.W.4 had deposed that collecting money and handing over the same to one Meenakkshi as per Ex.P.9 was under his instructions and Alageswaran, his signature or the signature of Alageswaran was not to be found in Ex.P.9.
18. As per the evidence of P.W.4, Ex.P.9 was handed over to Meenakshi as himself and Alageswaran were on leave on 1.3.2000. This version is factually an incorrect one. Also in the enquiry, the attendance register Ex.D.11 for 1.3.2000 proved that the petitioner himself and Alageswaran were on duty on 1.3.2000. Indeed, the said Meenakshi was not examined to prove that money under Ex.P.9 was collected as per the instructions given by the petitioner and Alageswaran.
19. The petitioner submits that the evidence of P.W.6 as regards the charge No.2 does not point out anything against him. It is the evidence of P.W.6 that a sum of Rs.850/- in 2 monthly instalments and Rs.500/- in 2 monthly instalments were collected by Central Nazir Natarajan and he heard that the petitioner and Alageswaran used to collect from Court staff to satisfy the necessity of R.Balasubramaniam, (then Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul). The individual Natarajan (Central Nazir), who was purporting to have collected the amount was not examined though he was very much available. Not even a statement was obtained from him as regards this charge. No staff members, who had alleged to have paid a sum of Rs.850/- or Rs.500/- in respect of the common fund was examined though they were very much available in service. Not even a statement was obtained from them. Thus, there was no legal evidence to point out that the petitioner had anything to do with the alleged common fund. While that being the position, the finding of the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority that the 2nd charge was proved against the petitioner is a frivolous one.
20. Coming to the aspect of 3rd charge levelled against the petitioner, the petitioner projects a plea that no documentary or oral materials were placed in the enquiry proceedings and none of the witnesses, who were examined in the enquiry deposed against him. There was absolutely no evidence in respect of the 3rd charge and in a mechancial fashion, the 3rd charge was held to be proved against the petitioner by the enquiry officer. When, in reality, it is a case of no evidence. As such, the finding of the Enquiry Authority as regards the 3rd charge is a frivolous one.
21. The petitioner was imposed with the extreme punishment of dismissal from service by the 2nd respondent/Registrar General, High Court, Madras as per the order dated 22.12.2004. The 1st respondent/High Court, Madras without considering the grounds of appeal filed by the petitioner had rejected his appeal in a summary manner as per the order dated 9.9.2005. Therefore, the order of the 2nd respondent dated 22.12.2004 and the order of the 1st respondent dated 9.9.2005 are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law.
22. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner urges before this Court that the charges levelled against the petitioner and the findings rendered by the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority are running in different lines and hence the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the 1st charge was held to be proved.
23. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance on the evidence adduced by P.W.4 to P.W.6 and P.W.8 submits that their evidence had no bearing to the 1st charge and these witnesses had not mentioned from whom they came to know that transfers in issue were routed through the petitioner and Alageswaran. They had also not spoken about the names of even one staff member, who had alleged to have obtained transfer through the petitioner. Hence, the "hearsay's source" was also not disclosed. The evidence tendered by the aforesaid prosecution witnesses were in the nature of no evidence and therefore the enquiry authority could have held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were unproved.
24. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that none of the witnesses examined before the enquiry authority had spoken against the petitioner in regard to the 3rd charge. Therefore, there was no resemblance of any evidence in respect of 3rd charge and hence it remains unproved.
25. Advancing his arguments, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority should have held that the charges themselves were vague as there was no detail relating to the date, time, persons from whom the petitioner had demanded and received the Bribe.
26. The Hon'ble Enquiry Authority had committed an error in admitting the statement of one Ponraj (no more at the time of the enquiry) notwithstanding the objections of the petitioner and certainly this was in violation of the principles of natural justice.
27. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was only an Assistant and had nothing to do with the allegations levelled against the Judicial Officer or against the Sheristadar. But, this was not taken into account by the 2nd respondent/Registrar General, High Court, Madras while awarding the punishment of dismissal from service to the petitioner.
28. Lastly, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the 1st respondent dated 9.9.2005 is a non-speaking one because of the fact that numerous grounds raised by the petitioner in appeal were not considered and the said order is an arbitrary one, besides the charges levelled against him were held to be proved based on surmises.
29. Conversely, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Respondents that the enquiry authority as well as the 1st and 2nd respondents had taken note of the overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case in an integral manner and after perusing the evidence of witnesses on record and documents and other materials had come to a right conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner were held to be proved and very rightly rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner and passed the impugned orders dated 22.12.2004 and 9.9.2005, which need not be disturbed by this Court at this distance of time.
30. It is quite appropriate for this Court to state that based on the three petitions and two telegrams C.No.118/1999-VC (ROC No.335//99-VC, 428/99-VC and 211/2000-VC) and C.No.14/2000-VC (ROC 177/2000-VC and 227/2000-VC), which were received against R.Balasubramanian, R. Alageswaran and N. Ragunathan, a detailed enquiry was framed and Additional Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell (Judicial), Madurai Unit conducted an enquiry into the allegations and submitted its report. On the report of the Investigation Officer, the then Hon'ble Chief Justice had directed the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, High Court to conduct a discreet enquiry into the allegations. The Special Officer, Vigilance Cell had proceeded to Dindigul on 3.5.2000, examined and recorded the statement of witnesses and collected the xerox copy of the relevant documents and he examined and recorded the statements of 13 witnesses and submitted its report dated 6.12.2000.
31. It is to be borne in mind that the petitioner by means of Roc.No.52/2000-Con.B2 dated 20.7.2000 has been issued with Official Memorandum by enclosing a copy of the Report of the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, High Court, Madras dated 6.6.2000, was directed to offer his explanation on the said report to the High Court within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said memorandum. The said report details with the discreet enquiry of the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, High Court in respect of complaint against R.Balasubramaniam, formerly Principal District Judge, Dindigul and Alageswaran, Sheristadar, Principal District Court, Dindigul and Thiru N.Ragunathan, Assistant, Principal District Court, Dindigul.
32. The Special Officer, Vigilance Cell of the High Court in respect of the allegation No.1 that R.Balasubramaniam while functioning as Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul had appointed, promoted and transferred the staff for monetary consideration as influenced by Thiru R.Alageswaran, Sheristadar through him he was benefitted under the caption "transfer", had stated, among other things, that R.Balasubramaniam, Principal District Judge, Dindigul took money for transfer of the staff through Alageswaran, Sheristadar and Raghu @ Ragunathan, Assistant, another staff of the Court. It was supported by the statement of Ponraj. Further, the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell in his report had mentioned that Ponraj had stated that Alageswaran himself had told him that all the transfers would be done according to the suggestions given by him to the Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Thiru. R.Balasubramaniam and if the money was paid, they would be posted at the place of their choice and if it was not paid, they would have no choice and they would be transferred to the place unwarranted.
33. The Special Officer, Vigilance Cell of High Court also, in his Report, had specified that R.Balamurugan, Junior Assistant stated that his colleagues Prema, Flora, Chandran, Sarojadevi, Anandhakrishnan who had not paid any amount to R.Balasubramaniam through Alageswaran, Sheristadar were transferred unnecessarily.
34. Also, in the report of the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, it was mentioned that Duraipandy, Sheristadar, Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Court deposed that R.Balasubramaniam, after becoming the Principal District Judge, Dindigul used to transfer the individuals, appoint and promote the individuals as suggested by Alageswaran, Sheristadar for which Alageswaran, Sheristadar used to get certain amount and used to retain one portion of the amount and rest of the amount was being paid to R.Balasubramaniam.
35. Ponraj, Head Clerk, Additional Sub Court, Dindigul, as pointed out by the Vigilance Officer in his report, also stated that on 2.2.2000, he was transferred from District Munsif Court, Dindigul. When he questioned the Sheristadar, Alageswaran told him that if the amount was paid, he will be retained in the same place or otherwise he has to join in the place where he will be posted.
36. Apart from the above, R.Rajasekaran in his statement had stated that he had not helped Alageswaran for collecting money from Amins as suggested to R.Balasubramaniam, Principal District Judge by Alageswaran, he was transferred on 7.1.2000 to the District Munsif Court, Dindigul. According to R.Rajasekaran, R.Subbulakshmi, Karpagasundari, N.Rukman Basha, Veerapandy were transferred to Palani. According to Muthusuguna, Central Nazir, since the demand of money by Alageswaran was not complied with, both Pandy and Karpagasundari, both process servers, were transferred to Palani, though both of them belonged to Dindigul and this was known to her through Pandyammal, W/o.Pandy, who was working at Dindigul.
37. Balamurugan, Junior Assistant had stated that Alageswaran, Sheristadar demanded money from him and after he went for inspection, since he refused to pay the demanded money, he was transferred to Judicial Magistrate Court, Palani.
38. The aforesaid statements of the individuals, as mentioned in the report of the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, High Court, Madras dated 6.6.2000, would go to show clearly that Alageswaran demanded money from the staff for retaining them in a particular place and if they refuse, they will be transferred. Further more, money was collected by Raghu @ Raghunathan and Alageswaran, Sheristadar and was paid to District Judge, R.Balasubramaniam. Alageswaran, Sheristadar used to retain one portion as his commission and pay the rest of the amount to the Principal District Judge, R.Balasubramaniam. Enormous transfers were made accepting monetary considerations as stated by the witnesses.
39. Therefore, the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, Madras High Court had concluded that the charge regarding transfers made by R.Balasubramaniam in the capacity of the Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul and Principal District Judge, Dindigul as suggested by Alageswaran, Sheristadar through whom he was getting monetary benefits, was substantiated.
40. Coming to the aspect of appointment, as per the report dated 6.6.2000 submitted by the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, Duraipandy, Sheristadar, Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul had mentioned that a sum of Rs.90,000/- was paid by one Elango through Alageswaran, Sheristada and Ragunathan, Assistant for appointing Thiru Elango as Xerox Operator. It is to be pointed out that this information was conveyed to him by Madhumalar, Steno, Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Dindigul and out of 14 candidates, Serial No.10 (P.T.Elangovan) was appointed as Xerox Operator. The said Elangovan told about the payment of money and through Madhumalar, Steno, Duraipandy, Sheristadar had come to know that Rs.90,000/- was paid for appointment of Elangovan. This would show that the allegation that for appointing one Elangovan as Xerox Operator, R.Balasubramaniam, Principal District Judge has got the money through Alageswaran, Sheristadar was substantiated.
41. In respect of Promotions, one S.Krishnaswamy had stated that Sivapathasekarapandi was promoted as Head Clerk and posted as Superintendent within a period of three months and for that money was paid by Sivapathasekarapandi to Alageswaran, Sheristadar, which in turn was paid to R.Balasubramaniam, Principal District Judge, Dindigul. This was informed to him by Sivapathasekarapndi himself. Thus, the allegation that for this promotion vide order in A.No.11/2000-A1 in Dis.No.554 dated 1.2.2000, money was paid through Alageswaran, Sheristadar to Principal District Judge R.Balasubramaniam was substantiated.
42. In regard to the allegation that R.Balasubramaniam, Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul and Principal District Judge, Dindigul receiving valuable gifts at the time of inspection, the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell had stated that the statement of the witnesses would indicate that Alageswaran, Sheristadar used to instruct the Court staff to meet out the expenses of R.Balasubramaniam. The allegation that R.Balasubramaniam, in his capacity both as Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate and Principal District Judge, Dindigul had received valuable gifts from the staff members of the subordinate courts was substantiated.
43. As regards the allegation that R.Balasubramaniam, Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul and Principal District Judge, Dindigul received household requirements from the Alageswaran, Sheristadar and Ragunathan, Assistant and other staff members, the witness Krishnaswami had stated that Alageswaran, Sheristadar and Ragunathan were meeting out the family requirements of R.Balasubramaniam, Principal District Judge. Duraipandi had stated that the Head Clerks of Judicial Magistrate's Courts were supplying grocery, fruits and milk to R.Balasubramaniam, Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul and the Head Clerks also used to supply Briyani to the Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.Balasubramaniam. Sometimes, he saw that Peons also used to supply these articles to the Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, R.Balasubramaniam.
44. Veerasamy has also stated that he has supplied one big tin of refined oil and 2 Kgs.of Coconut Oil to the house of R.Balasubramaniam through his Masalchi R.Manivel.
45. Balachandran, Junior Assistant had also stated that Alageswaran used to go to the house of Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate R.Balasubramaniam and meet out the family requirements. Further more, Ponraj had stated that Alageswaran, Sheristadar and Ragunathan used to go to the house of R.Balasubramaniam and attend to all the family requirements. What were all required by the family of R.Balasubramaniam were used to be met out by the Head Clerks of Judicial Magistrate Courts, Sadaiyandi, one Pattani and one Ramachandran. Alageswaran, Sheristadar, Ragunathan, Assistant and respective Head Clerks used to attend the family requirements of R.Balasubramaniam daily. Apart from that, the Head Clerks of the respective courts and other staff supplied the family requirements of R.Balasubramaniam. Hence the allegation that the family requirements are attended by the Sheristadar, Alageswaran and Assistant Ragunathan, was substantiated, as mentioned by the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell in his report.
46. In regard to the allegation that R.Balasubramaniam, Principal District Judge had misused his official position as Principal District Judge and induced the Principal District Munsif, Dindigul to write the judgment as instructed by him, after getting an amount of Rs.10,000/- through Alageswaran, Sheristadar from Krishnan, petitioner in ROC No.61/95. It is to be stated that the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell in his report dated 6.2.2000 had, among other things, stated that T.Krishnan, who filed RCOP No.61.95) along with Abdul Ameed, Head Clerk went to the District Court and met Alageswaran, Sheristadar and Alageswaran directed him to pay Rs.5,000/- to Abdul Hameed, Head Clerk to hand over it to his brother, Sahul Ameed, the tenant. Also, Alageswaran further directed to pay additional amount of Rs.10,000/- to the Additional District Judge R.Balasubramaniam to direct the District Munsif to dispose of the case in his favour. On 1.3.1999, he had demanded Rs.15,000/- as bribe to be paid to Abdul Ameed, Head Clerk. Abdul Ameed, Head Clerk took a sum of Rs.5,000/- for his brother Sahul Ameed and he paid the balance of Rs.10,000/- to Alageswaran, Sheristadar in his presence to hand over the amount to the Principal District Judge, Dindigul R.Balasubramaniam. On 11.3.1999, the judgment was pronounced in his favour. Therefore, the witnesses' statements, referred to above, would go to show that the former Principal District Judge had misused his official position as Principal District Judge and directed the Principal District Munsif, Dindigul to write the judgment as instructed by him, after getting an amount of Rs.10,000/- through Alageswaran, Sheristadar from Krishnan, petitioner in RCOP No.61/95.
47. The other allegation is relating to Alageswaran, formerly Sheristadar, Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Dindigul by his close association and proximity with R.Balasubramaniam, formerly Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul and Principal District Judge, Dindigul misused his official position. The evidence of Duraipandy, Sheristadar was to the effect that Alageswaran worked as Sheristadar prior to him under R.Balasubramaniam, Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul and there was close nexus between Alageswaran, Sheristadar and R.Balasubramaniam, Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul. As such, Alageswaran, Sheristadar had acted as an agent for R.Balasubramaniam, Principal District Judge, Dindigul.
48. Gangadharan, P.A.to the District Judge, Dindigul had also stated that R.Balasubramaniam, Principal District Judge had ordered in files in respect of staff promotions, appointment and transfers after consulting Alageswaran, Sheristadar, Dindigul. Therefore, the statement of Duraipandy, Sheristadar and Gangadharan, P.A to the District Judge, Dindigul would go to show that household requirements of R.Balasubramaniam, Principal District Judge, Dindigul, in his capacity as Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as Principal District Judge, were meted out by Alageswaran, Sheristadar with the assistance of Ragunathan, Assistant. Further, at the time of inspection, Alageswaran, Sheristadar has instructed the concerned court to incur heavy expenses by way of providing valuable articles and costly food and other items to the Principal District Judge, R.Balasubramaniam.
49. As regards the petitioner Ragunathan, Assistant, Principal District Court, Dindigul, he had accepted Telephone belonging to Kamatchi, Advocate bearing No.428782 and used it at his residence at Door No.77-A1, Annai Illam, Naicker New Second Street, Govindapuram, Dindigul and he used the Telephone and advertised in Dinamalar dated 28.11.1999 in Madurai Edition. The Special Officer, Vigilance Cell in his report had categorically stated, as spoken to by the witness Balachandran, that the petitioner Ragunathan and Alageswaran, Sheristadar colluded together and acted jointly and Ragunathan, Assistant has collected money from various staff for retaining them and handed it over to Alageswaran, Sheristadar, who influenced R.Balasubramaniam for getting favourable orders. Ragunathan, Assistant has misused his official position and collected money from the staff. The fact that Ragunathan had also used to supply the household articles to R.Balasubramaniam was spoken to by number of witnesses examined and thus the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell in his report concluded that the allegation against Ragunathan, Assistant, District Court, Dindigul for misusing his power was substantiated.
50. In short, the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, High Court, Madras in his report has concluded that the allegations levelled against R.Balasubramaniam, formerly Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate and Principal District Judge, Dindigul and Alageswaran, formerly Sheristadar, Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Court and now Sheristadar, Principal District Court, Dindigul and N.Ragunathan, Assistant, Principal District Court, Dindigul were substantiated.
51. The petitioner had submitted his explanation on the allegations made against him in the report of the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell through his reply dated 6.12.2000 addressed to the 2nd respondent Registrar General, High Court, Madras. Further, the petitioner in his explanation had stated that the 1st allegation of the report of the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell does not make any reference to him. Also, he had made mention that the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell while dealing with the first allegation had dragged his name on the basis of the statement recorded from Ponraj. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had mentioned that it was false to allege that the Principal District Judge, Dindigul (R.Balasubramaniam) was taking money for transfer of staff members through him and Alageswaran. Indeed, he had nothing to do with the transfers effected and he was unaware of them.
52. The petitioner in his explanation had proceeded further in mentioning that he only heard from Alageswaran that Principal District Judge was receiving money through him. That apart, he had not been furnished with any statement of Alageswaran in support of Ponraj's statement. The said Ponraj had also not mentioned any specific instance wherein he was involved and money passed through him.
53. As regards the appointment of Elangovan, Duraipandy had stated in his statement that he heard from Madhumalar that Elangovan had told her that he had paid money through Alageswaran and him for his appointment. In the absence of statements of Mahdumalar and Elangovan, the statement of Duraipandy had no value at all, as projected by the petitioner. He was not all connected with the appointment of Elangovan and nothing to do with that. Hence, there is absolutely nothing for the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell to involve him under the 1st allegation.
54. Coming to the 2nd allegation in the report of Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, the reply of the petitioner was to the effect that Muthusugna in her statement stated that a common fund used to be collected from the staff to meet out the court inspection and other persons connected with the Principal District Judge and he had nothing to do with the collection of so called common fund. Therefore, it was false to state that common fund was deposited with him.
55. The Special Officer, Vigilance Cell in his report, at page 10 of the Report, had mentioned that "the statement of witnesses indicate that Alageswaran, Sheristadar and the Assistant Ragunathan used to instruct the concerned court staff to make such arrangements". But, according to the petitioner, he was unable to find any material for such a report against this petitioner from the witnessess' statements given to him. As a matter of fact, he had not instructed anyone to make arrangements as alleged. As such, he had nothing to do with the 2nd allegation pertaining to the common fund.
56. In regard to the allegation No.3, the petitioner in his reply had stated that the statements of Krishnaswamy and Ponraj were relied upon by the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, High Court, Madras to state that this allegation was proved against him. If the statements of Krishnaswamy and Ponraj were closely read, it would be evident that they had not stated anything against the petitioner out of their personal knowledge. Really, Krishnaswamy would repeat "he had heard" in his statement. No specific instances were mentioned to prove the factum of Supplies and Services against the petitioner and Alageswaran to the Principal District Judge, Dindigul and he had not met his household expenses.
57. As regards allegation Nos.4 and 5 of the report of the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, the petitioner Ragunathan had stated that he had nothing to do with the allegations and not concerned with the same.
58. The petitioner (in W.P.2549 of 2006) by referring to page 19 of the report of the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, High Court, Madras had stated in his reply that the allegation that common fund collected was paid to Alageswaran or to him was utterly false one, since he was not concerned with any common fund and also that he never handled such collection . Added further, he had denied that Alageswaran met the household requirements of the Principal District Judge with his assistance.
59. In regard to Balachandran's statement relating to the Telephone in his house, the petitioner in his reply had stated that he did not own the Telephone and it was owned by one Kamatchi, Advocate, relation of his father-in-law. Kamatchi, at the instance of his father-in-law and at his own request, allowed him to have the Telephone in the petitioner's house temporarily. After getting the telephone at his place, he had not made use of the same for any advertising purpose and Ragunathan had no alias name as 'Ragu'.
60. The explanation submitted by the petitioner to the report of the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, High Court, Madras was considered by the Hon'ble Administrative Committee of this Court and the same was found to be unsatisfactory. Therefore, this Court in ROC No.52/2000-Con.B2 dated 24.9.2003 issued a charge proceedings to the petitioner by framing four charges and they read as follows:
CHARGE NO.1:
"That you, Thiru N. Ragunathan, now Assistant, Additional Sub Court, Salem, while working as Assistant, Principal District Judge, Dindigul along with Thiru R. Alageswaran, then Sheristadar, Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul demanded and received various amounts from the staff members, on behalf of Thiru R.Balasubramanian, then Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul and subsequently functioned as Principal District Judge, Dindigul in the matter of transfer of 52 staff members (vide list annexed) in Dindigul District during the period from 31.3.1998 to 14.9.1999 and handed over the same to Thiru R.Balasubramanian, thus committed the acts of corruption, corrupt practices, misuse of power, abuse of power and conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby rendered yourself liable to be punished under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules".
CHARGE NO.2:
"That you, Thiru N. Ragunathan, now Assistant, Additional Sub Court, Salem, while working as Assistant, Principal District Court, Dindigul along with Thiru R. Alageswaran, then Sheristadar, Principal District Court, Dindigul demanded and collected money a sum of Rs.300/- each from last grade Government Servants, Rs.850/- each from Assistants in two monthly instalments and Rs.500/- each from Junior Assistants in two monthly instalments in the name of common fund, in various courts in Dindigul district, on behalf of the Principal District Judge, Dindigul to meet the expenses of the said Thiru R.Balasubramanian, then Principal District Judge, Dindigul during the annual inspection of Subordinate Courts in Dindigul District, thus committed the acts of misuse of power, abuse of power and indulged in corrupt practices and conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby rendered yourself liable to be punished under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules".
CHARGE NO.3:
"That you, Thiru N. Ragunathan, now Assistant, Additional Sub Court, Salem, while working as Assistant, Principal District Court, Dindigul along with Thiru R.Alageswaran, then Sheristadar, Principal District Court, Dindigul influenced the staff members of various Subordinate Courts in Dindigul District to provide valuable gifts, costly clothes and other items to Thiru R.Balasubramanian, then Principal District Judge, Dindigul during his inspection of respective Subordinate Courts, thus committed the acts of misuse of official capacity, indulged in corruption and corrupt practices and conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby rendered yourself liable to be punished under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules".
CHARGE NO.4:
"That you, Thiru N. Ragunathan, now Assistant, Additional Sub Court, Salem, while working as Assistant, Principal District Court, Dindigul accepted a telephone belonging to Thiru Kamatchi, Advocate, Dindigul bearing No.482782 and used it in your residence; that you had given the said number in the advertisement in Dinamalar dated 28.11.99, Madurai edition for reference; thus misused your official position, committed the acts of abuse of power, misuse of power and corrupt practices and conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby rendered yourself liable to be punished under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules".
61. The petitioner's attention was invited to Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. He was required to put written statement of defence within 15 days from the date of receipt of the proceedings failing which he was informed that it would be presumed that he had no valid defence and the matter would be proceeded further as per Rules, etc. Along with the charge proceedings dated 24.9.2003, the 2nd respondent/Registrar General, High Court had also enclosed the statement of allegations made against the petitioner.
62. The petitioner had submitted his written statement of defence together with the form of questionnaire dated 27.11.2003 addressed to the 2nd respondent.
63. This Court in ROC.No.52/2000-Con.B2 dated 15.12.2003 had informed the petitioner and 3 others that Hon'ble Justice M.Chockalingam was appointed to conduct the departmental enquiry against R.Balasubramanian, Principal District Judge and two ministerial officers Alageswaran, Sheristadar, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli and Ragunathan, Assistant, Additional Sub Court, Salem and to render the findings. In the Departmental enquiry, the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court was appointed as the Presenting Officer.
64. P.W.1 Mr.D. Duraipandy (before the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority) in his evidence (in Departmental proceedings) had deposed that when he was working as Sheristadar in the year 1998, the 1st delinquent (R.Balasubramanian, Principal District Judge, Pudukottai) was working as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul and after that he was promoted as Principal District Judge, Dindigul and the 2nd delinquent Alageswaran was the Sheristadar before him when the 1st delinquent (R.Balasubramanian) was the Chief Judicial Magistrate of that court. It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that 2nd delinquent Alageswaran and the 3rd delinquent Ragunathan were in friendshiip and the 1st delinquent used to listen to whatever said by Alageswaran. The 1st delinquent used to listen to the 2nd delinquent regarding transfers and postings. When 2nd delinquent Alageswaran was the Sheristadar in the District Court, the 1st delinquent (R.Balasubramanian) was the District Judge at that time. Even then, whatever the 2nd delinquent said, the 1st delinquent (R.Balasubramanian) used to listen to him and act accordingly.
65. P.W.1 in his evidence goes on to add in cross-examination for 3rd delinquent that he had not personally seen 3rd delinquent giving money to the 2nd delinquent for his appointment and he denied the suggestion that since the 3rd delinquent did not participate in the staff association, he was giving evidence against him.
66. The evidence of P.W.2 S.Veerasamy is to the effect that on 4.4.2000, he was working in the Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Dindigul and from 1997 to 1999 he was working as Head Clerk at Neelakottai. Further, he came to Judicial Magistrate Court No.III during February 2000 etc. P.W.2 in his evidence had deposed that he used to arrange Car to the Chief Judicial Magistrate when one of the staff like Manivel informed him and he used to arrange the Cars whichever was available at that time. Moreover, he used to arrange rented cars for the Chief Judicial Magistrate and used to pay for the rented cars used by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
67. The evidence of P.W.3 R. Rajasekaran proceeds on the basis that the 2nd delinquent ( Alageswaran ) asked them to collect funds under the name ' common fund ' and he refused to collect the funds. The 2nd delinquent ( Alageswaran ) used to ask him to do his personal work also. He used to do only the official work but not the 2nd delinquent's personal work. Since he was not doing the 2nd delinquent's (Alageswaran ) personal work, he was suddenly transferred to District Munsif Court, Dindigul. This was done at the instruction of the 2nd delinquent because he did not collect funds towards " common fund " as directed by him. At that time the Central Nazir was Muthu Suguna. The 2nd delinquent ( Alageswaran ) asked Muthu Suguna also to collect funds towards common fund. He also refused to heed the said instructions. The 1st and 2nd delinquent officers had a close relationship. All the transfers were made only after the 2nd delinquent officer ( Alageswaran - petitioner in W.P.No.38511 of 2005 discussed about the same with the 1st delinquent officer (R.Balasubramanian ). Usually every one used to approach the 2nd delinquent if they wanted any transfers. In turn, the 2nd delinquent would inform the 1st delinquent and then, decisions regarding the transfers will be made and the staff used to approach the 2nd delinquent for any transfers because all of us knew that he had a great influence with the 1st delinquent.
68. P.W.4 Muthusuguna in her evidence had deposed that on 5.4.2000 she was working as Central Nazir in District Court, Dindigul. For the period from 26.12.1998 to 1.7.2001, he was in the post of Central Nazir in the District Court, Dindigul. She knew about the transfers in respect of the staff in her section during her tenure as Central Nazir, District Court, Dindigul.
69. P.W.4 proceeds in her evidence that during her tenure as Central Nazir, the 1st delinquent ( R.Balasubramanian) was the Principal District Judge during the year 1999 and she did not know about the relationship between the three delinquents (1st delinquent Judicial Officer and other two delinquents ministerial officers). Moreover, she informed that she used to meet and discus with each other closely in their official capacities. She heard that 2nd and 3rd delinquents ( Alageswaran and Ragunathan ) used to do supply and service to the 1st delinquent (R.Balasubramanian ) and she also heard that if such service was not rendered, the concerned staff were transferred. She heard also that the staff were threatened with transfers and they used to expect monetary consideration for effecting transfers. Two or three persons were transferred when they approached the 2nd and 3rd delinquents for such transfers. The said two or three persons told her that they were going to give some consideration for such transfers and she did not know what consideration they gave. Those two persons told her that their request for transfer would be complied with, if they approached the 2nd and 3rd delinquents ( Alageswaran and Ragunathan).
70. P.W.4 in her evidence adds to the effect that she heard that Safiyullah was promoted as Process Server within three months because of his close relationship with the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran). P.W.4 in her evidence had deposed to the effect that Rukman Batcha informed her that the 2nd delinquent had helped him for transfer. P.W.4 further deposed that she did not know what was the outward relationship between the 1st and 2nd delinquents. Further, they were told that a sum of Rs.10/- should be contributed towards 'common fund' only by nine Amins, Assistant Nazir and Central Nazir. Ordinarily Rs.10/- was collected and occasionally Rs.20/-. These amounts were handed over to the 2nd and 3rd delinquents. Similar collections were also made from other sections. These collections were made to meet certain expenses for the Judge. The Sheristadar used to tell them that such expenses would be incurred for the Judge. During her tenure as Central Nazir under the 1st delinquent ( R.Balasubramanian ) as Principal District Judge, such collections were made and they used to maintain receipts for making such collections. Ex.P.9 is one such receipt in which entries were made by her Assistant and she had initialed it in her capacity as Central Nazir. The incharge Head Clerk on that day has also signed in Ex.P.9 receipt. The 1st delinquent (R.Balasubramanian), the Bench Clerk (Jamal) and the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran) were friendly with each other. P.W.4 in her evidence also stated that "Received Rs.200/-" was written and signed by Meenakshi as the Head Clerk in Ex.P.9 and she had initialed in Ex.P.9 as Central Nazir and that Meenakshi who had accompanied during the above said inspection and received the gifts is the same Meenakshi, who has signed in Ex.P.9 as Head Clerk and Jamal was the Bench Clerk in the Additional Munsif Court.
71. P.W.4 Muthusuguna would depose in her evidence that it was generally talked that the 2nd and 3rd delinquents (Alageswaran and Ragunathan ) offered "supply and service" to the 1st delinquent and she could not specifically mention as to who told about the said fact. Further, she denied the suggestion that the 3rd delinquent (Ragunathan) never gave "supply and service" to the 1st delinquent (R.Balasubramanian ) etc. She also denied the suggestion that she never handed over any amount towards common fund to the 3rd delinquent and that he never received any such amounts.
72. P.W.5 R.Balamurugan in his evidence had deposed that after the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran ) took over as Sheristadar, whenever he had to forward the annual inspection reports, he expected certain considerations from the Subordinate Courts and he refused to comply with his demand and at that time he was in the post of Sheristadar in temporary capacity.
73. It is the evidence of P.W.5 that whenever the 1st delinquent (R.Balasubramanian ) went on inspection to Nalakottai, Palani, Dindigul etc., after the completion of the investigation, he would be presented with safari suit, etc., by the concerned staff on their own and not on the demand of the 1st delinquent. During the tenure of the 1st delinquent (R.Balasubramanian ) as Chief Judicial Magistrate, many of the staff members were transferred and this was done in return for monetary consideration to the 1st and 2nd delinquent from the said staff. He came to know this through some staff members, who had informed him. He had seen the 3rd delinquent (Ragunathan ) and had spoken to him some times but he did not have much acquaintance with him. He had head that he and the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran ) used to arrange for and receive monetary and other considerations on behalf of the 1st delinquent. After the transfer of the 1st delinquent as Principal District Judge, Dindigul, he had not known about his activities. He had heard from others that the relationship between the 1st delinquent (R.Balasubramanian ) and the 2nd and 3rd delinquents (Alageswaran and Ragunathan ) continued on the basis of friendship. He had heard from the staff of the Civil court that amounts were collected from the members of the staff and he had not known as to who ultimately received the collected amounts.
74. The evidence of P.W.6 Krishnaswamy is to the effect that when the 1st delinquent went to Palani Sub Court for inspection, he was gifted with two safari suits and that the inspection Clerk Meenakshi presented with a silk saree, and the Assistant Varadarajan was gifted with dress. He heard that for that inspection, a sum of Rs.14,000/- was collected from the court staff, the advocate and the Advocate Clerks and that in the evening a bid biriyani party was arranged in which the 1st delinquent participated along with the court staff, the advocates and the advocate clerks. He heard that a sum of Rs.500/- was collected from the Assistants over a period of two months from the Junior Assistants. He heard that Central Nazir Natarajan collected some amounts from the senior and junior bailiffs and contributed towards the collection meant for this inspection.
75. According to P.W.6, he heard that the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran ) and the 3rd delinquent (Ragunathan ) used to make collections from the court staff to fulfill the necessities of the 1st delinquent and the staff who did not contribute towards the said collection would be transferred and they would also assist the 1st delinquent (R.Balasubramanian ) in obtaining pecuniary consideration regarding cases. He also heard that when the 1st delinquent used to act as per the instructions of the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran ) and further since the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran ) was close to the 1st delinquent, he used to transfer the staff who did not heed his instructions to far off places and would also transfer the staff who would approach them requesting convenient transfers etc. He heard that all these transfers would be made by the 1st delinquent as per the instructions of the 2nd delinquent.
76. P.W.6 also deposed that it was not correct to state that the promotions and transfers of late Sivapathasekara Pandian was made a per Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, since he was given promotions overlooking the seniority of a a few. Moreover, it was not correct to state that the relations between the 1st and 2nd delinquents were purely official and not friendly. Further, it was not correct to state that his statement that the 2nd and 3rd delinquents (Alageswaran and Ragunathan ) had obtained pecuniary considerations from parties to get favourable orders was contrary to truth.
77. In cross-examination, P.W.6 had deposed that he did not know when, how and where the 3rd delinquent (Ragunathan ) supplied the necessities of the 1st delinquent and he could not specifically say from whom he heard that the 3rd delinquent used to fulfill the necessities of the 1st delinquent.
78. P.W.7 S.Gangadharan in his evidence had stated that the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran ) was the Sheristadar when he was P.A in the District Court and usually when the District Judge had some doubts on the papers presented to him by him, he used to clarify the doubts from others like the 2nd delinquent or some other persons as he likes. The relationship between the 1st delinquent and the 2nd delinquent was only official and as Judge and Sheristadar. The transfers, promotions and postings were made as per written directions or otherwise of the 1st delinquent.
79. As a matter of fact, P.W.7 was treated as hostile witness. He was permitted to be cross-examined and in his cross-examination, P.W.7 stated that in his statement before the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, he had stated that whenever he presented papers to the 1st delinquent, he used to summon the 2nd delinquent and discuss with him etc.
80. P.W.8 R.Balachandran in his evidence had deposed that he knew the 2nd and 3rd delinquents and knew all the happenings. He heard that the 2nd and 3rd delinquents (Alageswaran and Ragunathan) used to meet the 1st delinquent (R.Balasubramanian ) frequently regarding office matters and also would meet people and get their work done through the 1st delinquent. It is the further evidence of P.W.8 that whenever the staff wanted transfers, they used to approach the 2nd and 3rd delinquents, who in turn assured them that they would get such transfers and send them away. The 2nd and 3rd delinquents used to frequently visit the residence of the 1st delinquent saying that they are going there on official work. All the mofusil court staff used to come and see only the 2nd and 3rd delinquents and leave after getting their work done. Further, the 2nd and 3rd delinquents (Alageswaran and Ragunathan ) used to assure the staff that they would fulfill their requests and they would go to the 1st delinquent's (R.Balasubramanian) residence and after returning they would tell the persons who approached them that their work was over.
81. P.W.8 R.Balachandran in his evidence added that the 1st delinquent (R.Balasubramanian ) used to heed the advice of the 2nd and 3rd delinquents (Alageswaran-writ petitioner in W.P.No.38511 of 2005 and Ragunathan-writ petitioner in W.P.No.2549 of 2006) in matters of transfers and postings and he knew that the 3rd delinquent (Ragunathan) was residing at Door No.77/1, 'Annai Illam', II Naicker New Street, East Govinda Puram, Dindigul. He also heard that the 3rd delinquent obtained a a phone number from the Advocate and was running an agency through that phone Number. The number of the said Telephone was 428782, which belongs to Kamatchi, an Advocate. Ex.P.20 is the xerox copy of the telephone bill dated 11.11.1999, in the name of M.Kamatchi. He further deposed that suddenly, on one day he saw the phone number in Dinamalar dated 28.11.1999 for an advertisement regarding the agency. When he enquired with the 3rd delinquent, he told him that he gave the said phone to an agency. Ex.P.21 is the advertisement in Dinamalar, Madurai dated 28.11.1999. From this, he came to know that the 3rd delinquent was a Government Servant and was also running a cottage under the name 'RR Resorts' at Kodaikanal.
82. P.W.8 Balachandran was treated as hostile witness on permission being granted by the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority. In his cross-examination P.W.8 had stated that in his statement before the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, he had stated that the 2nd and 3rd delinquents used to do petti work for the 1st delinquents and used to go out boldly with outsiders and that they used to go to the 1st delinquent's house and provide him necessities and requirements etc.
83. P.W.9 G.Varadarajn had deposed before the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority contrary to what he had stated previously before the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell and therefore he was treated as hostile witness on permission being granted by the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority. After being treated as hostile witness, P.W.9 in his cross-examination had stated that in his statement before the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, he had mentioned that the 3rd delinquent (Ragunathan ) came along with him for inspection; but the 3rd delinquent had not inspected the records but only P.W.9 had inspected the records, etc.
84. The evidence of P.W.10 Lilly Loreth Mary is that she requested Duraipandy to obtain the 1st delinquent's signature in her pension papers and he told her that the 1st delinquent had informed him that the 2nd delinquent's signature has to be obtained in her file and Duraipandy also told her that he would obtain the signature of the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran ) and that he would also sign in the file and hand it over to the 1st delinquent. The 1st delinquent had not signed immediately and she approached the 1st delinquent twice or thrice in his chambers and requested him to sign in her file and he assured that he would do so and the Head Clerk had signed in her file on 20.11.1998 and the 1st delinquent signed on 14.1.1999 and she gave a statement before the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell on 22.5.2000.
85. P.W.12 K.Ramasamy in his evidence had deposed that after the 2nd delinquent, one Mr. Duraipandy became the Sheristadar and the pension papers of P.W.10 were pending even during the tenure of Duraipandy. P.W.12 in his cross-examination had stated that he could not tell the exact date when she saw her to see the 2nd delinquent.
86. The evidence of M.Kamatchi proceeds on the basis hat he is a practicing advocate for 16 years and obtained a telephone connection in his name during the year 1998. Further, it is his evidence that Ex.P.20 now shown to him is the xerox copy of the bill relating to the telephone charges paid by him in respect of the aforesaid telephone connection and that he had obtained a telephone connection for Door No.77-A1, II Naicker New Street, East Govindapuram, Dindigul.
87. The evidence of D.W.1 is that the 3rd delinquent's (petitioner) father-in-law Venkatachalam Pillai is the owner of the house wherein he was a tenant and in the said house, the 3rd delinquent (Ragunathan ) was residing in one of the five houses and in the building at Door No.77-A1, II Naicker New Street, East Govindapuram, Dindigul, there were two houses in the ground floor and two in the first and one in the second floor and all the five houses had the same door number and that he had not lent his telephone connection to the 3rd delinquent (petitioner Ragunathan ).
88. It is the categorical evidence of D.W.1 that the 3rd delinquent (Ragunathan ) had not utilised his telephone connection and after the shifting the residence at Door No.77-A1, II Naicker New Street, East Govindapuram, Dindigul and left to another house in October 1999, at that time, he informed the owner of the aforesaid residence that he would remove the telephone after shifting the connection and 15 to 20 days after shifting his residence, he shifted his telephone connection.
89. D.W.1 in his cross-examination has categorically deposed that the 3rd delinquent (Ragunathan ) is the son-in-law of the owner of the East Govindapurm house and he never allowed anyone else to use his telephone and for the first time he is seeing Ex.P.21 advertisement and that xerox copy of the telephone bill is Ex.D.9 for the period from 1.11.2003 to 31.12.2003.
90. The Hon'ble Enquiry Authority in ROC No.52/2000. Con.B2 in respect of the departmental enquiry against (1) R.Balasubramanian (formerly Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate and then Principal District Judge, Dindigul) now District Judge, Pudukottai, (2) R. Alageswaran, formerly Sheristadar, Principal District Court, Dindigul and now the Sheristadar, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirunelvei and N. Ragunathan, formerly Assistant, Principal District Court, Dindigul had come to the conclusion that charge No.1 against the 1st delinquent ( R.Balasubramanian ), 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran ) and the 3rd delinquent (Ragunathan ) was proved and that the delinquents 1 to 3 have committed the acts of corrupt practices, abuse of power, misuse of power and conduct unbecoming of a Judicial Officer (1st delinquent) and Government servants (2nd and 3rd delinquents) by placing reliance both on the direct and circumstantial evidence. The Hon'ble Enquiry Authority in his findings for Charge No.1 had clearly observed that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6 to 8 cannot be discarded branding it as "Hearsay", but could be well acted upon, if they are acceptable under the given circumstances. It is also the observation of the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority in the findings pertaining to charge No.1 that the delinquents came forward to explain the reasons for the transfer of a few of the staff; but that cannot be an answer for the transfer of more than 50 persons at a time and had come to the conclusion that the Department had proved that 1st delinquent while acting as Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate had passed order transferring 52 staff members to the various courts, since they had not paid the money as bribe demanded by him through the 2nd and 3rd delinquent.
91. In respect of the charge No.4 as against 1st Delinquent, charge No.5 as against the 2nd delinquent and charge No.3 as against the 3rd delinquent, the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority had, among other things, in his findings referred to the evidence of P.W.3 R. (Rajasekaran) and to the evidence of P.W.4 (V.Muthusuguna), P.W.5 (R. Balamurugan), P.W.6, S.Krishnaswamy and P.W.9 (G.Varadarajan) and had come to the conclusion that when the 1st delinquent was in the Court of a District Judge, the 2nd and 3rd delinquents were Sheristadar and Assistant respectively and held that the available evidence pointing to the commission of acts of corrupt practice, abuse of power, misuse of power, failure to maintain decorum and dignity of the Judicial Officer and Government Servants and conduct unbecoming of a Judicial Officer (1st delinquent ) and Government Servants (2nd and 3rd delinquents) and as such the charge No.4 as against 1st delinquent, charge No.5 as against the 2nd delinquent and charge No.3 as against the 3rd delinquent were proved.
92. As regards the charge No.2 as against the 1st delinquent (R.Balasubramanian ) and 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran), the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority referred to the evidence of P.W.1 Duraipandy and according to P.W.1, he was informed by the court staff that the one Elangovan was appointed as Xerox Operator and when the Stenographer of the 1st delinquent (R.Balasubramanian ) went to receive the signature of the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran ), the said Elangovan was standing there and after two days, the said Stenographer told that Elangovan had obtained the job by giving some money. Further P.W.1 added that the said money was said to be given through the 2nd and 3rd delinquents. The said Elangovan (appointed as Xerox Operator), who is in service was not examined by the Vigilance Cell. While the statement of Madhumalar Stenographer and Xerox Operator Elangovan were not recorded by the Vigilance Cell of High Court, no explanation was offered, as opined by the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority. Though P.W.3 Rajasekaran's evidence was relied on by the Vigilance Cell, since he had deposed in his evidence that how the post of Xerox Operator in Chief Judicial Magistrate Court was filled up, his evidence in any way would not improve the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority had come to the conclusion that the charge No.2 as against the 1st and 2nd delinquents were not proved.
93. In respect of the Charge No.3 against the 1st and 2nd delinquents, the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority had come to the conclusion that a perusal of Ex.P.15 would indicate that the nomination of Sivapathasekarapandi on promotion and by virtue of seniority, he got his promotion by proceedings as per Ex.P16 dated 31.1.2000 and he was posted as the Head Clerk in the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodaikanal. In short, the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority had rendered the finding that the Department had not proved by adducing either direct or circumstantial evidence, the receipt of bribe either by the 1st delinquent Officer or through the 2nd delinquent staff and that accordingly held that the said charge had not been proved.
94. In respect of Charge No.5 as against 1st Delinquent, charge No.4 as against 2nd Delinquent and charge No.2 as against the 3rd Delinquent, the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority had taken the evidence of P.W.6 (S. Krishnaswamy) that he came to know a sum of Rs.850/- was collected from the Assistant in instalments over a period of two months; and that a sum of Rs.500/- was collected in two instalments over a period of two months from the Junior Assistants and that P.W.7 had admitted the collection of fund by the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran). Moreover, Ponraj's statement, marked as Ex.P.12 would indicate that last grade Government servants used to give household articles to the 1st delinquent (R.Balasubramanian) supplied by one Pattani, Sadayandi and Ramachandran. Therefore, the available evidence would go to show that the 1st delinquent Officer (R.Balasubramanian ) allowed the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran ) and the 3rd delinquent (Ragunathan ) to collect those amounts and received household articles at the expenses of the staff, which were compelled to be collected by the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran) and the 3rd delinquent (Ragunathan ) and accordingly held that the Department had proved this charge against them.
95. In regard to the charge No.7 as against the 1st delinquent (R.Balasubramanian ) and charge No.6 as against the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran ), the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority had observed that this charge relates to the 1st delinquent Officer as Principal Judge, Dindigul through the 2nd delinquent as Sheristadar of the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul demanded and received a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 1.3.1999 from P.W.11 Krishnan, the petitioner in RCOP No.61/95 pending on the file of Rent Controller/Principal District Munsif for influencing the said Principal District Munsif to pass orders in favour of the petitioner in RCOP T.Krishnan and they also received the same amount in that regard and influenced the Principal District Munsif to pass such favourable orders. The witness P.W.11 Krishnan in cross-examination was treated as hostile witness in the Departmental enquiry and since he had not in any way connection either with 1st delinquent or the 2nd delinquent with regard to RCOP in question and the orders passed therein. The Hon'ble Enquiry Authority held that this charge remained unproved.
96. In respect of Charge No.4 as against the 3rd delinquent (Ragunathan ) pertaining to the fact that he accepted a telephone belonging to one Kamatchi, Advocate bearing No.482782 and used it in his residence and has given the said number in an advertisement in Dinamalar dated 28.11.1999, Madurai Division under Ex.P.21 for reference, the Department prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.8 and Exs.P.20 to P.22. The Hon'ble Enquiry Authority had opined in his findings/report that no material was placed in the enquiry for departmental proceedings either to prove that the said telephone was obtained by the petitioner Ragunathan or he accepted the same from the Advocate Kamatchi or had he given the telephone number to Dinamalar, Madurai for reference. Further, Ex.P.9 for the months of November and December 2003 would indicate that the said telephone connection was still with D.W.1 and finally held that there cannot be any impediment for placing reliance on the evidence of D.W.1 to reject the version of the Department and therefore held that this charge remained not proved.
97. Before concluding the report, the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority in his report dated 17.4.2004 had opined among other things that any conduct which is not proper or befitting the position of a Government servant, could be termed as unbecoming conduct and a Government servant is expected to maintain a responsible and decent standard of conduct and a slip from such standard would render an act unbecoming of a Government servant. The preponderance of probabilities and the materials on record would be necessary to reach a conclusion whether or not the Delinquent has committed the act.
98. The Hon'ble Enquiry Authority has further held that in the instant case, the Delinquents 1 to 3 have conducted themselves in a way inconsistent with the due and faithful discharge of their duty in service and they have committed acts of corrupt practices, abuse of power, misuse of power and conduct unbecoming of a Judicial Officer and Government servants and consequently held that
a) Charge No.1 as against D1 to D3;
b) Charge No.4 as against D1
c) Charge No.5 as against D2;
d) Charge No.3 as against D3;
e) Charge No.5 as against D1;
f) Charge No.4 as against D2;
g) Charge No.2 as against D3;
h) Charge NO.6 as against D1
i) Charge No.8 as against D1 stand established, while the
a) Charge No.2 as against D1 and D2;
b) Charge No.3 as against D1 and D2;
c) Charge No.7 as against D1;
d) Charge No.6 as against D2 and
e) Charge No.4 as against D2 are not proved.
99. To lend support to the contention that the charges 1 to 4 framed against the petitioner Ragunathan are vague and there were no details in the said charges as regards the date, time, persons from whom the petitioner Ragunathan had demanded and received bribe, the learned counsel for the petitioner Ragunathan relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surath Chandra Chakravarty vs. the State of West Bengal, AIR 1971 SCC 752, wherein it is held that 'vague and indefinite charges and failure to supply statement of allegations would render removal of Government servant void and inoperative.
100. He also cites a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sawai Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (1986) 3 SCC 454 at page 455, wherein it is held as follows:
"The charges were in the present case vague and it was difficult to meet the charges fairly by any accused. Evidence adduced was perfunctory and did not at all bring home the guilt of the accused. The absence of challenge before the enquiry officer or before the High Court, that the charges were vague would not by itself exonerate the department from bringing home the charges. Having regard to the consequences of the offences with which the delinquent officer was charged, the nature of charges, the absence of opportunity for cross-examination and the conflicting nature of evidence, it must be held that the report of the enquiry officer finding the delinquent-appellant guilty should not have been sustained and the government should not have acted upon it Charges involving consequences of termination of service must be specific, though a departmental enquiry is not like a criminal trial. There is no such rule that an offence is not established unless it is proved beyond doubt. But in a departmental enquiry entailing adverse or penal consequences like loss of job which means loss of livelihood, there must be fair play in action, there must be investigations into the charges in accordance with the principles of natural justice insofar as these are applicable in a particular situation. The application of the principles of natural justice must always be in conformity with the scheme of the Act and the subject matter of the case. It is not possible to lay down any rigid rules as to which principle of natural justice is to be applied. There is no such thing as technical natural justice. The requirements of natural justice depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the enquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject-matter to be dealt with and so on. Concept of fair play in action which is the basis of natural justice must depend upon the particular lis between the parties. Beyond all rules and procedures such fairness is the sine qua non."
101. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner (Ragunathan) seeks in aid the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardwari Lal v. State of U.P. and other (1999) 8 SCC 582, at page 583, wherein in paragraphs 3 to 5, it is observed as follows:
"3. Before us the sole ground urged is as to the non-observance of the principles of natural justice in not examining the complainant, Shri Virender Singh, and the witness, Jagdish Ram. The Tribunal as well as the High Court have brushed aside the grievance made by the appellant that the non-examination of those two persons has prejudiced his case. Examination of these two witnesses would have revealed as to whether the complaint made by Virender Singh was correct or not and to establish that he was the best person to speak to its veracity. So also, Jagdish Ram, who had accompanied the appellant to the hospital for medical examination, would have been an important witness to prove the state or the condition of the appellant. We do not think the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in thinking that non-examination of these two persons could not be material. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court and the Tribunal erred in not attaching importance to this contention of the appellant.
4. However, Shri Goel, the learned Additional Advocate General, State of Uttar Pradesh has submitted that there was other material which was sufficient to come to the conclusion one way or the other and he has taken us through the same. But while appreciating the evidence on record the impact of the testimony of the complainant cannot be visualised. Similarly, the evidence of Jagdish Ram would also bear upon the state of inebriation, if any, of the appellant.
5. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that there was no proper enquiry held by the authorities and on this short ground we quash the order of dismissal passed against the appellant by setting aside the order made by the High Court affirming the order of the Tribunal and direct that the appellant be reinstated in service."
102. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner (Ragunathan) invites the attention of this Court to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in B.Padmaiah vs. the Union of India and 5 others, 2007 Writ Law Reporter, 7 at Page 8, wherein it is held that 'failure to examine the complainant whose complaint is the basis for the disciplinary action against the petitioner and the failure to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to test the veracity of the complaint made against him has resulted in the deprivation of right of the petitioner amounting to gross violation of principles of natural justice and that the entire disciplinary proceedings are hence vitiated.
103. In Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank,(2009) 2 SCC 570, at page 577 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"A departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties.
The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence.
The appellant being an employee of the Bank, the said confession should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the enquiry officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left."
104. In M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India, Supreme 3 (2006) 393, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 23 and 25 to 28 has observed and held thus:
23. Evidently, the evidences recorded by the enquiry officer and inferences drawn by him were not commensurate with the charges. If it was a case of misutilisation or misappropriation, the appellant should have been told thereabout specifically. Such a serious charge could not have been enquired without framing appropriate charges. The charges are otherwise vague. We have noticed hereinbefore that the High Court also proceeded on the basis that the non-maintenance of diary amounted to misutilisation of copper wire.
...
25. It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. Although the charges in a departmental proceeding are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analysing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with.
26. The report of the enquiry officer suffers from the aforementioned vices. The orders of the disciplinary authority as also the Appellate Authority which are based on the said enquiry report, thus, cannot be sustained. We have also noticed the way in which the Tribunal has dealt with the matter. Upon its findings, the High Court also commented that it had not delved deep into the contentions raised by the appellant. The Tribunal also, thus, failed to discharge its functions properly.
27. For the views we have taken, the impugned judgments are wholly unsustainable.
28. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The consequence of the said order would have been to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority. We, however, do not intend to do so as the charges relate to the year 1969-70. The appellant, due to pendency of these proceedings, has suffered a lot. He is, therefore, directed to be reinstated in service, if he has not reached the age of superannuation. However, keeping in view the fact that he has not worked for a long time, we direct that he may only be paid 50% of the back wages."
105. In Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer, (1985) 3 SCC 378, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down as follows:
"A disciplinary enquiry has to be a quasi-judicial enquiry held according to the principles of natural justice and the enquiry officer has a duty to act judicially. Where a disciplinary enquiry affects the livelihood and is likely to cast a stigma and it has to be held in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the minimum expectation is that the report must be a reasoned one. It cannot be an ipse dixit of the enquiry officer. The Court then may not enter into the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence. But where the evidence is annexed to an order sheet and no corelation is established between the two showing application of mind, it is not an enquiry report at all."
106. In A.V.Krishnamurthy vs. Government of Tamilnadu and others, 1985 (1) LLJ 46 (Division Bench), this Court has held as under:
"It is well settled that disciplinary proceedings before a Departmental Tribunal are quasi judicial in nature and any conclusion to be reached by such a tribunal must be on the basis of acceptable evidence. Such evidence must have some degree of definiteness. It is true the Departmental Tribunal is not governed by the strict and technical rules of evidence. But if the Tribunal rendered a finding based on no acceptable evidence that could be regarded as an error of law to be corrected by a writ of certiorari. This Court has power under Art.226 to enquire whether the conclusion of the Departmental Tribunal is supported by any acceptable evidence at all."
107. Apart from the above decisions, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner (Ragunathan) relies on the following decisions:
a) In Chairman and Managing Director, Tamilnadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd., Madras and others Vs. M. Jagadeesan and others, in (2009) 7 MLJ 17, wherein this court held as follows:
"The materials on record would speak volumes that the then incoming Chairman and Managing Director, for his own reasons, has destined to punish these writ petitioners/delinquents, even though his predecessor-in-office seems to have promised otherwise to the delinquent officers. But for such promise and assurance by the erstwhile Chairman and Managing Director, the delinquent officers may not have remitted the alleged amounts and pleaded guilty for the charges framed by the Department, wherein, unusually, no oral or documentary evidence has been let in on the part of the Department. When, except the alleged charges, no other allegations were ever made and proved against the delinquent officials, and the appellate authority acted in the manner required of him under Rule 6.25, by acting in a judicious manner, he would not have approved such a shocking and disproportionate punishment imposed on the delinquent officials. The Court is not holding that repayment of the alleged misappropriated amounts by the delinquent officers would itself absolve them of the charges. But, Court wants to insist that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment imposing authority must have imposed minor penalties on the delinquent employees, so as to deter them from indulging in such activities in future and the appellate authority must have acted in a judicious manner to cure the defect or error committed by the enquiry officer and the punishment imposing authority."
b) In CHAIRMAN, DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, RANI LAKSHMI BAI KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK v. JAGDISH SHARAN VARSHNEY reported in (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 807, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows "An order of affirmation need not contain as elaborate reasons as an order of reversal but that does not meant the order of affirmation need not contain any reasons at all. Whether there was an application of mind or not, can only be disclosed by reasons, at least in brief, mentioned in the order of appellate authority. An affirmation order must contain some reasons, at least in brief."
Also in paragraph 8, it is held that "the purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 is that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi-judicial authorities. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person know whether the authority has applied its mind or not? Also, giving of reasons minimises the chances of arbitrariness. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in a judicial or quasi-judicial order, even if it is an order of affirmation.
W.P.No.38511 of 2005:
108. The petitioner (Alageswaran) has filed the present Writ Petition praying for a writ of Certiorari in calling for the entire records relating to the order made in ROC No.52/2000-Con.B2 dated 9.9.2005, confirming the order of dismissal passed in ROC No.52/2000-Con.B2 dated 22.12.2004 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras represented by Registrar General/respondent and to quash the same. Moreover, the petitioner has sought for issuance of a direction in directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in Tamilnadu Judicial Ministerial Service with all consequential benefits.
109. The petitioner joined the service as Record Clerk at Madurai District court on 2.1.1969. According to him, he rendered meritorius and unblemished service for 35 years, 11 months and 21 days. During his tenure as court staff, he was never issued any charge memo, charge sheet, suspension order, warning letter, adverse entry in confidential report etc. He maintained clean and honest service record throughout his career. He received the following good service entries:
a)Issued by District Magistrate, Madurai District Magistrate Court vide No.ROC.No.K.Dis.3510/73 B2 dated 6.5.1973
b)Issued by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, vide No.ROC.No.1095/98 A1 dated 15.3.1979
c)Issued by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai Chief Judicial Magistrate court vide No.ROC.No.8358/79 dated 20.2.1980
d)Honoured by issuance of 25 years of unblemished service award vide A.No.34/97 dated 3.3.1997 by the then Principal District Judge and the present Honourable Justice of Madras High Court, Justice S.Sardar Zckaria Hussain.
110. The petitioner was issued with a charge proceeding as per ROC No.52/2000 Con.B2 dated 24.9.2003 by the Registrar General, High Court, Madras, framing charges against him. Also the Registrar General, High Court, Madras had issued charge proceedings against the 1st delinquent, Principal District Judge R.Balasubramanian and the 3rd delinquent Ragunathan (writ petitioner in W.P.2549 of 2006).
111. He submitted that he replied to the charges framed against him as per the written statement of defence dated 27.11.2003. It was found to be unsatisfactory. Therefore, a departmental enquiry was ordered to enquire into the charges framed against him. Hon'ble M.Chokalingam, J (now retired) was the enquiry officer, who conducted a domestic enquiry against the three delinquents jointly.
112. The Hon'ble Enquiry Authority held that the charge Nos.1, 4 and 5 were proved against the petitioner Alageswaran and held that the charge Nos.2, 3 and 6 were not proved.
113. The petitioner was issued with a show cause notice as per the Official Memorandum dated 5.7.2004 in ROC No.52/2000-Con.B2 to offer his defence against the proposed disciplinary action. He offered his explanation dated 21.7.2004 to the Registrar General, High Court denying the charges and prayed for favourable consideration of his defence and withdrawal of the charges.
114. The Hon'ble High Court rejected the petitioner's explanation and accepted the findings of the Hon'ble enquiring Judge and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. Pursuant to the said order, he was dismissed from service as per the order in ROC No.52/2000-Con.B2 dated 22.12.2004 issued by the respondent/Registrar General, High Court, Madras. Thereupon he projected an appeal petition on 20.1.2005 against the order of dismissal. His appeal was considered by this Court and rejected as per the order in ROC No.52/2000-Con.B2 dated 9.9.2005 issued by the Registrar General, High Court, Madras. The petitioner having left with no other option had preferred this Writ Petition No.38511 of 2005 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
115. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st charge levelled against the petitioner was that he demanded and received various amounts from the staff members on behalf of Thiru. R. Balasubramanian, then Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul and subsequently Principal District Judge, Dindigul in the matter of transfer of 52 staff members in Dindigul District during the period from 31.3.1998 to 14.09.99 and handed over the same to officer.
116. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner worked in the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Dindigul as Sheristadar only from 8.10.1998 to 22.12.1998, i.e., for a period of 76 days and in fact he was under authorised leave for 12 days from 22.10.1998 to 2.11.1998. Hence, he worked under Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate only for a period of 64 days. The possibility of himself establishing a very close and personal relationship with the 1st delinquent (R.Balasubramanian) to the extent mentioned in the charge proceedings within a period of 64 days was a remote and improbable. Learned Counsel for the petitioner advancing his arguments submits that the findings of the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority proceeds on the presumption that the charges against the delinquents 1 to 3 were one and the same. The findings of the domestic enquiry proceeded on the footing that the Court has to necessarily hold that the department has proved that the 1st delinquent while acting as Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate had passed orders transferring 52 staff members to various courts since they had not paid the money as bribe as demanded by him through the 2nd delinquent and the 3rd delinquent. According to the petitioner, there was no finding in regard to the purported demand and receipt of various amounts from the staff members on behalf of the 1st delinquent (R.Balasubramanian ) and handed over to him and hence, it had resulted in miscarriage of justice.
117. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner projects a plea that the crux of the charge had not been considered by the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority and since the findings were not based on evidence, there was a manifest error on the face of record. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that it was stated that P.W.5 R.Balamurugan was one of those 52 staff members and his name was also referred to in the charge. P.W.5 was not one of those 52 staff members, whose name was referred to in the list annexed with the charge proceedings framed against the petitioner. In short, the evidence of P.W.5 could not be titled as direct evidence. P.W.5 R.Balamurugan claimed that he was forcibly transferred to Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palani. But Palani was his native place and he deliberately stated Palani is a far off place.
118. Referring to the evidence of P.W.1, he had mentioned in chief examination that Ex.P.2 is the list of persons, who were transferred and he had not known for which reasons they were transferred and also stated in the cross examination that he had no personal knowledge regarding the orders of appointment and transfers, which are alleged to have been made for monetary considerations. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 Duraipandy could not have been relied upon by the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority to hold that the charges were proved. P.W.4 had a clear motive to depose against the petitioner Alageswaran and the said motive was established by the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.1 had stated in his cross-examination that it was correct to state that the 2nd delinquent petitioner Alageswaran would have been continuing in service, if Muthusuguna would not have become the Personal Assistant to the District Judge. Therefore, it was established that P.W.4 Muthusuguna had a clear motive to depose against the petitioner and she was the beneficiary of the disciplinary proceedings initiated and punishment inflicted on the petitioner.
119. P.W.2 Veerasamy and P.W.3 R. Rajasekaran had not substantiated the charge levelled against the petitioner. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the statement of deceased Ponraj recorded by the Vigilance Officer could not be relied upon pursuant to the rulings of the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India vs. P.C.Jain reported in 1969 SC 983. The ruling in that case was that 'the principle that a fact sought to be proved must be supported by the statement made in the presence of the person against whom the enquiry is held and the statement made behind the back of the person charged are not to be treated as substantive evidence is one of the basic principles which cannot be ignored on the mere ground that domestic Tribunals are not bound by the technical rules of procedures contained in the Evidence Act.
120. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that no aggrieved person complained that they were transferred since they had not paid the money demanded by the delinquent officers. The prosecution/department also failed to establish clearly as to in whose case the money was received and what amount of money was received and handed over to the 1st delinquent R.Balasubramanian. Moreover, when a person aggrieved by any act is available, his evidence cannot be neglected since it was very much relevant to establish the charge.
121. In respect of the fourth charge that on behalf of the 1st delinquent Thiru. R. Balasubramanian, the petitioner Alageswaran demanded and collected a sum of Rs.300/- each from last grade Government Servants and Rs.850/- each from Assistants in two monthly instalments and Rs.500/- each from Junior Assistants in two monthly instalments in the name of common fund in various courts in the Dindigul District, to meet out the expenses of said Thiru. R. Balasubramanian, then Principal District Judge, Dindigul during the annual inspection of Subordinate Courts. It is to be pointed out that the prosecution failed to interrogate the individuals alleged to have been contributed towards the common fund.
122. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Alageswaran submits that P.W.6 S.Krishnasamy being the President of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Association ought to be in a position to tell the name of the persons who contributed the amount and he had not stated anything regarding the collection of Rs.300/- each from last grade Government servants. Further, he deposed in his cross-examination that he could not mention the dates, timings and the name of the persons from whom the 2nd delinquent (petitioner-Alageswaran ) obtained pecuniary considerations on behalf of the 1st delinquent.
123. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence of P.W.6 is contradictory inasmuch as he had stated in chief examination that the staff who contributed money as directed by the 2nd delinquent would get convenient transfers whereas the staff who refused to contribute to the collection would be transferred to the inconvenient far off places. P.W.6 in his cross examination deposed that he had not known the details about the transfers effected by the 1st delinquent as per the instructions of the 2nd delinquent. In his cross examination, P.W.6 also deposed that he had not known the names of the staff and the dates on which they were transferred to far off places etc. Since the evidence of P.W.6 was quite contradictory and could not have been relied upon, it is not correct to hold that the charge No.4 against the petitioner was proved.
124. That apart, P.W.7 S.Gangadharan had neither contributed to the common fund nor was he asked to do so. Since he was treated as hostile witness, his evidence could not be taken into account. There was absolutely no evidence to establish charge NO.4 as proved.
125. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge No.5 against the petitioner is that while he was working as Sheristadar, Principal District Court, Dindigul, he influenced the staff to provide valuable gifts, costly clothes and other items to the 1st delinquent R. Balalsubramanian, (the then Principal District Judge, Dindigul) during his inspection of respective Subordinate Courts in Dindigul District.
126. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that P.W.3 R.Rajasekaran deposed in his chief examination that the 2nd delinquent asked the said Muthusuguna P.W.4 to collect funds towards common fund and she refused to heed to the said instruction. The said Muthusugna deposed that Rs.10/- was collected and occasionally Rs.20/- was collected and she had initialed in the receipt. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 were contradictory in nature and hence their evidence could not have been relied upon to hold that the charge as proved.
127. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no evidence to establish that the petitioner had influenced the staff to provide gifts, costly clothes etc. In the cross-examination P.W.4 Muthusuguna had deposed that Meenakshi had written in Ex.P.9 as 'received Rs.200' and she also signed as Central Nazir. She also stated that Meenakshi, who had accompanied during the abovesaid inspection and received gifts was the same Meenakshi who signed in Ex.P.9 as Head Clerk.
128. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the admission of P.W.4 in her evidence to the effect that there was no written evidence about handing over of the amounts collected towards the common fund to the petitioner. P.W.4 also deposed that the 1st delinquent R.Balasubramanian went on inspection to Palani during February 1999 and after the inspection, a big party was arranged in Sub Court, Palani.
129. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that during February 1999, Thiru V.K.Thiruvaukkarasu was the District Judge and the 1st delinquent R.Balasubramanian was only an Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate and in that capacity he could not have inspected the said Sub Court. The evidence of P.W.1, according to the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, had not established that the petitioner Alageswaran was involved in influencing the staff members to provide valuable gifts. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.4 Muthusuguna could not have been relied upon to hold charge No.5 as proved.
130. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner mentioning the evidence of P.W.5 R.Balamurugan to the effect that whenever the 1st delinquent went in inspection to Nilakottai, Palani, Dindigul etc., after the completion of investigation, he could be presented with safari etc., by the concerned staff on their own and not on the demand of the 1st delinquent (R.Balasubramanian) and that party would also be given after the conclusion of the investigation. Further more, P.W.5 had deposed that after the transfer of the 1st delinquent as Principal District Judge, Dindigul, he had not known about his activities. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.5 Balamurugan failed to prove that the petitioner Alageswaran as Sheristadar of Principal District Court influenced the staff members to provide valuable gifts, costly clothes and other items to the 1st delinquent R.Balasubramanian, the then Principal District Judge, Dindigul.
131. The evidence of P.W.6 was only a hearsay one and he had no personal knowledge about the charge pertaining to providing valuable gifts and costly clothes to the 1st delinquent.
132. P.W.9 was treated as Hostile witness. Therefore, according to the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.9 could not be relied upon to hold that the charge No.5 was proved. In short, the evidence of the deceased Ponraj in Ex.P.12 was recorded behind the back of the delinquents and it could not be relied upon to hold charge No.5 as proved, according to the principles of natural justice.
133. The core contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the entire evidence of the witnesses is purely a hearsay one and the persons, who are said to have paid bribes were not at all examined. The statement of allegations were also very vague and thereby deprived the petitioner to make an effective defence.
134. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of dismissal from service imposed on him by the competent authority was in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order was in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner's defence was not at all considered while imposing the extreme punishment of dismissal from service in gross violation of principles of natural justice. His finding is bad in law as the impugned order of dismissal had been passed without appreciation of evidence and without any fault on the part of the petitioner.
135. It is to be pointed out that the Hon'ble High Court received three petitions and two telegrams C.No.118/1999-VC (ROC No.335//99-VC, 428/99-VC and 211/2000-VC) and C.No.14/2000-VC (ROC 177/2000-VC and 227/2000-VC) against R.Balasubramanian, Principal District Judge, R. Alageswaran , Sheristadar, Principal District Court, Dindigul (writ petitioner in W.P.38511 of 2005) and N. Ragunathan, Assistant, Principal District Court, Dindigul (writ petitioner in W.P.2549 of 2006). A detailed enquiry was ordered based on complaints. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell (Judicial), Madurai Unit conducted an enquiry into the allegations and submitted his report. On the report of the Investigation Officer, the Hon'ble Chief Justice has directed the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, High Court, Madras to conduct a discreet enquiry into the allegations. The Special Officer, Vigilance Cell had proceeded to Dindigul on 3.5.2000, examined and recorded the statement of witnesses and collected the xerox copy of the relevant documents and he examined and recorded the statements of 13 witnesses and submitted its report dated 6.6.2000.
136. As per the Minutes of the Meeting of the Administrative Committee of this Court dated 16.6.2000, the copies of the report of the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, High Court, Madras were directed to be furnished to R.Balasubramanian, formerly Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, R.Alageswaran, Sheristadar, Principal District Court, Dindigul and N.Ragunathan, Assistant, Principal District Court, Dindigul and they were directed to submit their explanations within 15 days. The preliminary explanation and detailed explanations submitted by R.Balasubramanian, formerly Principal District Judge, Dindigul, R. Alageswaran, formerly Sheristadar, Principal District Court, Dindigul and N. Ragunathan, formerly Assistant, Principal District Court, Dindigul were directed to be placed before the Hon'ble Administrative Committee dated 19.12.2000. By minutes of the meeting of the Hon'ble Administrative Committee held on 9.1.2001, it could be seen that the explanations submitted by the three delinquents, namely R.Balasubramanian, formerly Principal District Judge, Dindigul, R. Alageswaran, Sheristadar, Principal District Court, Dindigul and N. Ragunathan, Assistant, Principal District Court, Dindigul were found to be not satisfactory and hence charges were directed to be framed against them.
137. As regards the petitioner, the following charges 1 to 6 were framed as per the proceedings of the Registrar General dated 24.9.2003:
CHARGE No.1:
"That you, Thiru R. Alageswaran, now Sheristadar, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirunelveli, while functioning as Sheristadar, Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Dindigul and Principal District Court, Dindigul demanded and received various amounts from the staff members on behalf of Thiru. R. Balasubramanian, then Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul and subsequently Principal District Judge, Dindigul in the matter of transfer of 52 staff members in Dindigul District during the period from 31.3.1998 to 14.09.99 and handed over the same to Thiru.R. Balasubramanian, thus committed the acts of misuse of power, abuse of power and indulged in corrupt practices and conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby rendered yourself liable to be punished under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules."
CHARGE NO.2:
"That you, Thiru.R. Alageswaran, now Sheristadar, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirunelveli, while functioning as Sheristadar, Principal District Court, Dindigul received a sum of Rs.90,000/- from Thiru Elango @ P.T. Elangovan on behalf of Thiru R. Balasubramanian, then Principal District Judge, Dindigul for appointment as Xerox Operator; that you handed over the said amount to Thiru R. Balasubramanian, thus committed the acts of corrupt practices and conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby rendered yourself liable to be punished under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules."
CHARGE NO.3 "That you, Thiru. R. Alageswaran, now Sheristadar, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirunelveli, while functioning as Sheristadar, Principal District Court, Dindigul received bribe from Thiru Sivapathasekarapandi, on behalf of Thiru R. Balasubramanian, Principal District Judge, Dindigul for promoting as Head Clerk and Superintendent; that you handed over the bribe amount received by you to Thiru R. Balasubramanian, thus committed the acts of corrupt practices and unbecoming of a Government Servant and hereby rendered yourself liable to be punished under Tamil Nadu Civil Service (D & A ) Rules."
CHARGE NO.4 "That you, Thiru. R. Alageswaran, now Sheristadar, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirunelveli, while functioning as Sheristadar, Principal District Court, Dindigul and Thiru. Raghunathan, then Assistant, Principal District Court, Dindigul, on behalf of Thiru. R. Balasubramanian, then Principal District Judge, Dindigul , demanded and collected a sum of Rs.300/- each from last grade Government Servants and Rs.850/- each from Assistants in two monthly instalments and Rs.500/- each from Junior Assistants in two monthly instalments in the name of common fund in various courts in the Dindigul District, to meet out the expenses of said Thiru. R. Balasubramanian, then Principal District Judge, Dindigul during the annual inspection of Subordinate Courts in Dindigul Dist.; thus committed the acts of misuse of power, abuse of power and indulged in corrupt practices and conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby rendered yourself liable to be punished under the Tamil Nadu Civil Service ( D & A) Rules."
CHARGE NO.5:
"That you, Thiru. R. Alageswaran, now Sheristadar, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirunelveli, while functioning as Sheristadar, Principal District Court, Dindigul along with Thiru. N. Raghunathan, then Assistant, Principal District Court, Dindigul influenced the staff members of various Subordinate Courts in Dindigul district to provide valuable gifts, costly clothes and other items to Thiru R. Balalsubramanian, then Principal District Judge, Dindigul, during his inspection of respective Subordinate Courts in Dindigul District, thus committed the acts of abuse of official capacity, indulged in corruption and corrupt practices and conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby rendered yourself liable to be punished under the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (D & A) Rules."
CHARGE NO.6:
"That you, Thiru. R. Alageswaran, now Sheristadar, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirunelveli, while functioning as Sheristadar Principal District Court, Dindigul on 01.03.1999 on behalf of Thiru. R. Balasubramanian, then Principal District Judge, Dindigul, demanded a sum of Rs.15,000/- from Thiru.T. Krishnan, Petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.61/95, that having received the said amount, you had handed over the sum of Rs.10,000/- to Thiru. R. Balasubramanian, then Principal District Judge, Dindigul for obtaining a favourable order to Thiru. T. Krishnan in the said R.C.O.P., pending on the file of Principal District Munsif, Dindigul , thus committed the acts of corruption and corrupt practices, misuse of power, dereliction of duty and conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby rendered yourself liable to be punished under the Tamilnadu Civil Service (D&A), Rules".
138. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 27.11.2003 along with the filled in form of questionnaire. In the Minutes of the Meeting of the Hon'ble Administrative Committee of this Court held on 7.8.2003, it was resolved to appoint Hon'ble M.Chockalingam, J as Enquiring Judge to conduct the departmental enquiry against R.Balasubramanian, Judicial Officer and two other ministerial staff.
139. As a matter of fact, when the petitioner Alageswaran had made a request to furnish copies of the documents, referred to in the charge proceedings, so as to enable to him to submit his written statement of defence, the petitioner was informed that he was already been furnished with documents at the time of calling for explanation and further he was permitted to peruse the documents referred to him before the Principal District Judge, Dindigul on 8.11.2003 at 11 a.m., so as to enable him to file his written statement of defence. The Hon'ble Enquiry Authority on 10.11.2003 had stated that the written statement of the delinquents were perused and they were found to be not satisfactory and ordered for enquiry. The Registrar General was appointed as the Presenting Officer.
140. Charge No.1 relating to the petitioner is that while he was functioning as Sheristadar, he demanded and received various amounts from the staff members on behalf of R.Balasubramanian, the then Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul and subsequently Principal District Judge, Dindigul in the matter of transfer of 52 staff members (as per list annexed) in Dindigul District during the period from 31.3.1998 to 14.9.1999 and handed over the same to R.Balasubramanian, thus committed the acts of misuse of power, abuse of power and indulged in corrupt practices and conduct unbecoming of a Government servant. It is to be pointed out that the 1st delinquent R.Balasubramanian took charge as Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate on 9.3.1998 and served in that capacity till 6.12.1999. Ex.P.2 is the list of transfers covering the period from 18.2.1998 to 14.9.1999. In the transfer list, relating to Serial Nos.49 and 52, the petitioners were not connected and also these transfer orders issued on 9.9.1999 as per Ex.D.5 were made by the predecessor in office of the 1st delinquent/officer.
141. According to P.W.5 Balamurugan, after the 2nd delinquent (petitioner Alageswaran ) took charge as Sheristadar, when he had to forward the annual inspection reports, the petitioner (2nd delinquent Alageswaran ) expected some considerations from the Subordinate Courts and since he refused to comply with the demand, the petitioner Alageswaran (2nd delinquent ) had developed an attitude of vengeance against him. It is the further evidence of P.W.5 that there was a vacancy in the post of Assistant and submitted his application for promotion and sine he was due for the same on the basis of seniority, the 2nd delinquent (petitioner Alageswaran ) demanded monetary consideration from him for complying with his request. Inasmuch as he refused to comply with the same, he was transferred to Judicial Magistrate Court, Palani. Likewise, some of his colleagues were also transferred elsewhere by the orders of the 1st delinquent and at the instigation of the 2nd delinquent (petitioner Alageswaran ), since they refused to accede to the demands of the 2nd delinquent.
142. P.W.5 goes on to add in his evidence that during the tenure of the 1st delinquent as Chief Judicial Magistrate, many of the staff members were transferred and the same was done in return for monetary considerations to the 1st delinquent (R.Balasubramanian ) and the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran ) from the said staff. Moreover, he came to know of this because the concerned staff members, who did not accede to the demand for monetary considerations, were transferred to far off place. One Clara, Sarojadevi and two others mentioned to be transferred to far off places on that ground.
143. In regard to the 1st charge framed against the three delinquents (including the petitioner), all the 52 transfers were ordered and effected by the 1st delinquent Judicial Officer at the instance of the 2nd delinquent (writ petitioner Alageswaran ) and the 3rd delinquent (writ petitioner Ragunathan ) when the demand for Bribe was not met.
144. It is not in doubt that as against P.W.5, certain charges were framed against him under Rule 17(a) and 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which according to P.W.5, it was only due to the vengeance developed by the 2nd delinquent (writ petitioner Alageswaran ) because he refused to meet the demand of the 2nd delinquent (writ petitioner Alageswaran ).
145. P.W.1 Duraipandy in his evidence had deposed before the Enquiry Authority that the 1st delinquent was working as Chief Judicial Magistrate, 52 staff members were transferred as seen from Ex.P.6 series. Further, one staff by name Kanagam, a Steno Typist was transferred to Kanyakumari based on the orders of the 1st delinquent officer and also that it was spoken among the staff that all the transfers were made on the recommendation of the 2nd delinquent (petitioner Alageswaran ) and that the transfers were made in anticipation of monetary benefits. In fact, P.W.1 Duraipandy had specifically denied the suggestion that the transfers were made ony according to the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Services and not for any monetary or other benefits.
146. P.W.2 also deposed that one Ramachandran, who was referred to in the charge, had told him (when P.W.2 was working as Head clerk at Nilakottai from 1997 to 1999) that if Rs.2,000/- was paid, he would be retained in Dindigul or otherwise he would be transferred and since he had not given the money, later he was transferred. Also he mentioned that one Manivelan, the Masalji of Judicial Magistrate Court No.III had informed him that if Ramachandran had not paid Rs.2,000/- to the 1st delinquent, he would be transferred. The statement of P.W.2 was marked as Ex.P.7 (recorded by the Vigilance Officer).
147. The evidence of P.W.3 Rajasekaran, Assistant was to the effect that all the transfers were made only after the 2nd delinquent discussed about the with with the 1st delinquent Officer. Usually every one used to approach the 2nd delinquent if they wanted any transfers and in turn the 2nd delinquent would inform the 1st delinquent Officer and then the decisions therein would be made and the staff used to approach the 2nd delinquent (petitioner Alageswaran ) for any transfers because all of them knew that that the 2nd delinquent (petitioner Alageswaran ) had a great influence with the 1st delinquent officer.
148. P.W.4 Muthusuguna in her evidence had deposed that she heard that the 2nd and 3rd delinquents (petitioners Alageswaran and Ragunathan ) used to supply and service to the 1st delinquent Officer and if such service was not rendered, the concerned staff were threatened and transferred. Moreover, they used to accept monetary consideration for effecting transfers and two or three persons were transferred when they approached the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran ) and the 3rd delinquent (Ragunathan ) for such transfers.
149. P.W.4 Muthusuguna, who was the Central Nazir of the District Court, had put in 20 years of service and her statement was marked as Ex.P.13 given before the Vigilance Officer. The Hon'ble Enquiry Authority had observed that P.W.4's evidence inspired his confidence.
150. P.W.6 in his evidence had deposed that when the 1st delinquent (Judicial Officer R.Balasubramanian ) was Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as District Judge, the 2nd delinquent (writ petitioner Alageswaran) and the 3rd delinquent (writ petitioner Ragunathan ) used to fulfill all the necessities of the 1st delinquent. Further, the evidence of P.W.6 was to the effect that Sivapathasekarapandi, who was an Assistant in the District Munsif Court, Dindigul was promoted as Head Clerk and posted to Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Dindigul told her that he gave pecuniary consideration to the 1st delinquent through the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran ) and got promotion and that the 1st delinquent used to act as per the instructions of the 2nd delinquent (writ petitioner Alageswaran ).
151. The evidence of P.W.6 proceeds on the footing that he heard that the 2nd delinquent (writ petitioner Alageswaran ) was close to the 1st delinquent (judicial officer R.Balasubramanian ) and the 2nd delinquent (writ petitioner Alageswaran ) used to transfer the staff, who did not heed his instructions to far off places etc. Moreover, the staff, who contributed as directed by the 2nd delinquent (writ petitioner Alageswaran ) would get convenient transfers, whereas the staff, who refused to contribute the collection, would be transferred to inconvenient and far off places. In short, the evidence of PW.6 is in line with the statement marked as Ex.P.18 (recorded by the Vigilance Cell ).
152. P.W.8 Balachandran also stated in his evidence that to his knowledge, the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran ) and the 3rd delinquent (Ragunathan ) used to meet the 1st delinquent Officer frequently regarding the office matters, also would meet people and get their work done through the 1st delinquent Officer and further whenever the staff wanted transfers, they used to approach the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran ) and the 3rd delinquent (Ragunathan ), who in turn assure them that would get such transfers and send them away.
153. Added further, it is the evidence of P.W.8 that the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran ) and the 3rd delinquent (Ragunathan ) used to frequently visit the residence of the 1st delinquent officer saying that they were going there on official work and all the mofusil court staff used to go and see only the 2nd delinquent and the 3rd delinquent and leave after getting their work done. That apart the 2nd delinquent and the 3rd delinquent used to assure the staff that they would fulfill their requests and they would go to the 1st delinquent's residence and after returning, they would tell the persons who approached them, that their work was over. To establish succinctly, the aforesaid evidence of P.W.8 unerringly pointed out that the 2nd delinquent and the 3rd delinquent had close connections and the 1st delinquent (judicial officer) would act according to the desire of the 2nd and 3rd delinquents (Alageswaran and Ragunathan ).
154. The statement of Ponraj (who expired on 18.12.2003) was marked as Ex.P.12. In his statement Ex.P.12, deceased Ponraj had mentioned that he approached the 2nd delinquent for his transfer and that he was transferred from District Munsif court to Sub Court and he approached the 2nd delinquent and he enquired about the transfer and the 2nd delinquent told him if money was paid, he would be reposted to the same place and otherwise he was to go the place of transfer. Further more, the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran ) informed him money was paid to the 1st delinquent for all transfers. It is the categorical statement of Ponraj that the 1st delinquent (officer) received money for transfers from different officers and money was paid through the 2nd and 3rd delinquents and if money was not paid, those people were transferred to different places and resultantly put to suffering.
155. The Hon'ble Enquiry Authority had accepted the statement of Ponraj namely Ex.P.12 recorded by the Vigilance Officer and in law there no express or implied bars to mark the statement of deceased Ponraj on the testimony of P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 (Duraipandy , Veerasamy, Rajasekaran, Muthusuguna, Krishnaswamy, Gangadharan, Balachandran had held that the three delinquents have committed the acts of corrupt practices, abuse of power, misuse of power and conduct unbecoming of a Judicial Officer (1st delinquent ) and Government servants (2nd delinquent and 3rd delinquent ) and thus the charge No.1 as against the delinquents 1 to 3 was proved.
156. In regard to the 2nd charge as against the 1st delinquent (R.Balasubramanian ) and the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran ), the enquiry officer, after discussing the evidence of P.W.1 had come to a resultant conclusion that the Department has miserably failed to prove the charge against the delinquents.
157. With regard to the 3rd charge as against the 1st delinquent Officer and the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran ), the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority had come to the conclusion that the said charge was not proved against them.
158. With regard to charge No.4 as against 1st delinquent, charge No.5 as against the 2nd delinquent and charge No.3 as against the 3rd delinquent, the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority after extracting the evidence of P.W.4 to the effect that during the relevant period when he was Central Nazir of the District Court, they were told that a sum of Rs.10/- was collected and occasionally Rs.20/- and these amounts were handed over to the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran ) and the 3rd delinquent (Ragunathan ) and similar collections were also made from other sections and those collections were made to meet certain expenses for the 1st delinquent (R.Balasubramanian judicial officer), also based upon the evidence of P.W.4 that the 2nd delinquent used to tell them that such expenses would be incurred for the 1st delinquent and the receipts for making such collections were maintained and Ex.P.9 was one such receipt, in which entries were made by her and she had initialled it in the capacity as Central Nazir. Further the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority had referred to the evidence of P.W.3 in his report dated 17.4.2004 that the 1st delinquent went on inspection to Sub Courts like Palani and Dindigul and he heard that the contributions were collected from the staff by presenting the 1st delinquent officer with silk garments, and when the 1st delinquent went on inspection, the Subordinate Judge had presented him with Safari Suit and the silk angavasthram and the amounts were used to be collected from the staff by Sheristadar or the Head Clerk for making the said gifts to the 1st delinquent Officer. The evidence of P.W.3 is categorical to the effect that he personally knew about the contributions that were collected from the staff and that as a result of which, the staff members were put to inconvenience due to the collections made by the Head Clerk or the Sheristadar.
159. P.W.4 also in her evidence had stated that the 1st delinquent went on inspection to Sub Court, Palani in February 1999 and after the completion of the inspection, a big party was arranged by spending a sum of Rs.10,000/- and the entire expenditure was meted out by the staff of the said Court. Moreover, in the said party, advocate clerks had also participated and a gift was was presented to the 1st delinquent officer. P.W.4 in her evidence added that she was informed about these details by the staff of the Sub Court, Palani whenever she went on inspection.
160. P.W.5 in his evidence had also stated that eventhough the 1st delinquent went on inspection to Nilakottai, Palani, Dindigul etc., after the completion of the inspection, he would be given safari suit, etc., by the concerned staff of the said court. Also a party would be given after the conclusion of the inspection and the arrangements for the party as well as a presentation of gifts would be done by the concerned staff and the 2nd delinquent used to arrange for the party and the gifts and the expenses in this regard would be met by the concerned Court staff and the Head Clerk.
161. The evidence of P.W.6, S.Krishnaswamy is to the effect that when the 1st delinquent went to Sub Court, Palani for inspection, he was gifted with safari suits and the inspection Clerk Meenakshi was presented with a silk saree and the Assistant Varadarajan was gifted with dress. Moreover, he heard that for the said inspection a sum of Rs.14,000/- was collected from the Court staff, advocates and the advocate clerks and in the evening, a big biriyani party was arranged in which the 1st delinquent R.Balasubramanian participated along with the Court staff, advocates and advocate clerks.
162. P.W.9, Varadarajan, an Assistant had spoken to the factum of the 1st delinquent / officer being given fruits and ivory coloured shawl which were purchased at the expenses of the Court staff. Even Ex.P12 statement of deceased Ponraj, it is quite evident that the 1st delinquent would be given a costly pant and biriyani and the officer had to be given a liquor etc and further, the expenses must be borne by the staff.
163. From the above narration of evidence of P.Ws.3, 4, 5, 6 and 9, it is clear that charge No.5 as against the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran) and charge No.3 as against the 3rd delinquent (Ragunathan) were proved by the prosecution.
164. In regard to charge No.4 as against the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran) a statement of Ponraj Ex.P12 is a Pivotal one. From the statement of Ponraj, namely, Ex.P12, it is candidly clear that the last grade government servants used to deliver household articles to the 1st delinquent (R.Balasubramanian) supplied by one Pattani, Sadayandi and Ramachandran. The evidence of P.W.6 is also to the effect that he had come to know that a sum of Rs.850/- was collected from the Assistant in instalments over a period of two months and a sum of Rs.500/- was collected in two instalments over a period of two months from the junior Assistants. P.W.7 had admitted in his evidence the collection of funds by the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran). Therefore, the charge was held to be proved.
165. In respect of charge No.6 as against the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran), the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority held that it remained unproved.
166. As against the impugned order of dismissal dated 22.12.2004, the petitioner (Alageswaran) filed an appeal on 20.1.2005 and the same was rejected by this Court on 09.9.2005.
167. At this juncture, we deem it appropriate to make a mention that we had perused the available material records in the matter in issue.
168. On going through the findings of the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority dated 17.4.2004 and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also after scrutinising the oral and documentary evidence recorded, we are of the considered view that the findings of the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority in his report dated 17.4.2004 to the effect that the charge Nos.1, 4 and 5 as against the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran) are proved, are based on record and also based on legal evidence. After all, in a domestic enquiry, the charges levelled against the petitioner are to be established by means of preponderance of probabilities and not a proof beyond reasonable doubt like criminal proceedings.
169. In short, the findings of the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority are clearly, legally sustainable and they do not suffer from any serious infirmity or tainted with any illegality, in our considered opinion.
170. Since the Hon`ble High Court had concurred with the findings of the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority and accepted the same, no detail reasons were required to be mentioned in passing the order of rejection. Therefore, the particular plea taken by the petitioner that the order of rejection dated 09.9.2005 of the High Court was not a speaking one and is not valid in the eye of law, is rejected.
171. Learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules which speaks of furnishing of the copy of the report of the enquiry officer to the delinquent officer for further representation with its objections to impose major penalties. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice by means of initial memo on 05.7.2004 in ROC.No.52/2000- Con.B2 in and by which he was furnished with copies of findings of the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority and he was given an opportunity to submit his further explanation, if any, on the findings of the High Court within 15 days from the date of receipt of the Official Memorandum. Accordingly, he submitted his further representation dated 21.7.2004 and only thereafter in due consideration of the entire materials placed on record, the dismissal order dated 22.12.2004 was passed by this Court in ROC.No.52/2000-Con.B2. In the said Official Memorandum, it was made clear that the 1st respondent High Court considered the findings of the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority and the further representation of the petitioner delinquent (Alageswaran) and while the High Court rejected the further representation of the petitioner, the High Court had accepted the findings of the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority and ordered to impose the penalty of dismissal from service. The proved charges were grave in nature resulting in the High Court imposing the penalty of dismissal from service as against the 2nd delinquent (Alageswaran) formerly Sheristadar of Principal District Court Dindigul and now Sheristadar, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirunelveli. The said official memorandum was forwarded to the individual in A.No.831/2004 on 23.12.2004. Subsequently, the appeal preferred by the petitioner dated 20.1.2005 was rejected by this Court on 09.9.2005.
172. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner also refers to Rule 18(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules - Records to be maintained by authorities imposing penalties. Rule 18(b) -Orders of punishments to contain the ground and communicated to person concerned. The said Rule 18(a) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules is as follows:
Rule 18(a) The authority imposing any penalty under these rules shall maintain a record showing-
(i) the allegations upon which action was taken against the person punished
(ii) the charges framed, if any;
(iii) the person's representation, if any, and the evidence taken, if any and
(iv) the finding and the grounds thereof, if any Rule 18(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules runs hereunder:
"Rule 18(b) Orders of punishments to contain the grounds and communicated to person concerned:
(b) All orders of punishment shall also state the grounds on which they are based and shall be communicated in writing to the person against whom they are passed."
173. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner also refers to Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which speaks the 'power of the appellate authority'.
174. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following decisions:
i) In Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727, wherein at pages 728 and 729, it is held as follows:
"Where the enquiry officer is other than the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary proceedings break into two stages. The first stage ends when the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions on the basis of the evidence, enquiry officers report and the delinquent employees reply to it. The second stage begins when the disciplinary authority decides to impose penalty on the basis of its conclusions. If the disciplinary authority decides to drop the disciplinary proceedings, the second stage is not even reached.
While the right to represent against the findings in the report is part of the reasonable opportunity available during the first stage of the inquiry viz., before the disciplinary authority takes into consideration the findings in the report, the right to show cause against the penalty proposed belongs to the second stage when the disciplinary authority has considered the findings in the report and has come to the conclusion with regard to the guilt of the employee and proposes to award penalty on the basis of its conclusions. The first right is the right to prove innocence. The second right is to plead for either no penalty or a lesser penalty although the conclusion regarding the guilt is accepted. It is the second right exercisable at the second stage which was taken away by the Forty-second Amendment. The second stage consists of the issuance of the notice to show cause against the proposed penalty and of considering the reply to the notice and deciding upon the penalty. What is dispensed with is the opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed and not of opportunity of making representation on the report of the enquiry officer. The latter right was always there. But before the Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution, the point of time at which it was to be exercised had stood deferred till the second stage viz., the stage of considering the penalty. Till that time, the conclusions that the disciplinary authority might have arrived at both with regard to the guilt of the employee and the penalty to be imposed were only tentative. All that has happened after the Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution is to advance the point of time at which the representation of the employee against the enquiry officers report would be considered. Now, the disciplinary authority has to consider the representation of the employee against the report before it arrives at its conclusion with regard to his guilt or innocence of the charges."
(ii) In R.P. Bhatt v. Union of India, AIR 1986 2 SCC 1040, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
" The word consider in Rule 27(2) implies due application of mind. Rule 27(2) casts a duty on the Appellate Authority to consider the relevant factors set forth in clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof.
...
There was no indication in the impugned order dismissing an appeal against the order of removal from service, preferred by the employee of Border Road Organisation, that the Director General, the appellate authority, was satisfied as to whether the procedure laid down in the Rules had been complied with; and if not, whether such non-compliance had resulted in violation of any of the provisions of the Constitution or in failure of justice."
(iii) In Ram Chander v. Union of India and others (1986) 3 SCC 103, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down as follows:
"The impugned order of the Railway Board was just mechanical reproduction of the phraseology of Rule 22(2) of the Railway Servants Rules without any attempt on the part of the Railway Board either to marshal the evidence on record with a view to decide whether the findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority could be sustained or not. There is also no indication that the Railway Board applied its mind as to whether the act of misconduct with which the appellant was charged together with the attendant circumstances and the past record of the appellant were such that he should have been visited with the extreme penalty of removal from service for a single lapse in a span of 24 years of service. Dismissal or removal from service is a matter of grave concern to a civil servant who after such a long period of service, may not deserve such a harsh punishment. There being non-compliance with the requirements of Rule 22(2) of the Railway Servants Rules, the impugned order passed by the Railway Board is liable to be set aside."
(iv) In Arokiadoss Vs.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law & Order (South), Madras-8 and another, 1989 W.L.R.276in paragraph 4, it is held as follows:
"4. In the present Case, the order of the appellate authority does not indicate, whether the appellate authority considered the materials on record in the light of rule 6(1) of the Rules. He should have discussed the relevant evidence and found whether the facts on which the order of the disciplinary authority was based have been established. He should have also considered whether the facts afford sufficient ground for taking disciplinary action and whether the penalty is excessive, adequate or inadequate. As the order of the appellate authority does not show that he has considered the relevant matters prescribed under Rule6(1) of the Rules, the order is vitiated. On this ground the order is liable to be quashed."
(v) In Janarthanan, Assistant Executive Engineer, Palacode, Dharmapuri District vs. the Chief Engineer Distribution, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and others, 2004 WLR 636, at page 637, it is laid down as follows:
"The appellate authority has merely confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority stating that no new points had been urged. If an appeal has been filed, it is the duty of the appellate authority to consider the contentions raised by application of independent mind. That having not been done, such order passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained.
I feel, it would not be in the interest of justice to prolong the matter any further. The allegations, even if proved, did not call for any severe punishment, much less, stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, particularly in view of the specific finding that there was no allegation of any payment of bribe. For the aforesaid reasons, I am inclined to quash the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner."
(vi) In N.Vanaja Vs.The Board of Directors of Tamilnadum Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd., Chennai-600 016, rep. by its Chairman and another, 2006(4) CTC 53, in paragraphs 3 and 4, it is held as follows:
"3. It is brought to the notice of this Court, Rule 6.25-A of the Service Rules of Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, which contemplates that when an Appeal is preferred imposing penalties specified in Rule 6.15, the Appellate Authority shall consider whether the penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe and pass orders (i) confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty or (ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. Rule 6.25-B contemplates that it shall be open to the Appellate Authority to call for the records in respect of any disciplinary proceeding and review any order made under these rules and pass such orders as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
4. After going through the order impugned in the Writ Petition, this Court is prima facie satisfied that the Appellate Authority except informing that after detailed examination a resolution has been passed to reject the Appeal made by the petitioner and confirm the order dated 1.6.2005 passed by the Managing Director, nothing has been stated, has not followed the Rules contemplated under Rule 6.25-A of the above said service rules as to whether the Appellate Authority had considered that the punishment imposed was adequate or inadequate. What is the detailed examination is also not mentioned in that order."
(vii) In Director (Marketing), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and another, vs. Santosh Kumar, (2006) 11 SCC 147, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the appellate authority simply adopted the language adopted by the disciplinary authority and refused to interfere with the dismissal order and as such the order of the appellate authority is vitiated by total non-application of mind and the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal by the disciplinary authority.
(viii) In K.Kandasamy Vs.Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tiruchirapalli Range, Tiruchirapalli and another, (2006) 4 MLJ, 1382 at page 1383, in paragraph No.7, it is observed as follows:
"7. It is seen from the aforesaid portion of the impugned order that the Appellate Authority did not deal with any of the grounds of appeal realised by the petitioner. A departmental appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings. It is needless to point out that the last opportunity available for a delinquent, to canvass his case on merits, is at the appellate stage. After the appeal, a delinquent loses his right to challenge any disciplinary proceedings on merits, since the scope of interference on a revision or on a writ petition is very limited. Therefore, the rules themselves contemplate Appellate Authorities to go into the factual details and consider all the grounds of appeal before deciding an appeal. Unfortunately, the first respondent has chosen to dismiss the appeal by a non-speaking order and hence the Appellate Authority's order is liable to be set aside."
(ix) In Divisional Forest Officer, Kothangudem and others vs. Madhusudhan Rao, 2008 (1) Supreme 617, at page 618, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 19 among other things held that although no detailed reasons are required to be given, but some reasons should be indicated in an order affirming the views of the lower forum.
(x) In V.Arulselvan Vs.State of Tamilnadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai and Others, (2008) 5 MLJ, at page 1329, it is held as follows:
"Thus, the appellate authority has to consider including other things, whether the order of the original authority has to be confirmed, enhanced, reduced or set aside. When specific grounds have been raised by the petitioner explaining the circumstances under which the said amount had been utilised and also pleading for mercy, it is expected that the appellate authority has to consider the said grounds taken by the petitioner. Admittedly, the appellate authority has not considered whether the punishment awarded to the petitioner is on the higher side and whether it requires any modification or reduction. As rightly pointed out by the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the appellate authority has not considered whether the punishment of removal imposed by the original authority is adequate or inadequate."
(xi) In M/s.Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Sales Tax Officer, Rourekela-I Circle and others, 2008 (5) Supreme 281, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the appellate order must be a speaking one and well reasoned and without reasoning, an order becomes lifeless.
(xii) In Amaladoss vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Secretary to Government, Home Department (Courts I-A) Chennai and another, (2006) 4 MLJ 1360, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court at page 1361 has held that departmental proceedings cannot be initiated against the judicial officer on the basis of ill-conceived or motivated complaints.
(xiii) In G.Ramakrishnan vs. Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar and others, (2008) 6 MLJ 266 at page 267, it is held as follows:
"As the appellate authority is the final fact finding authority under the rules and considering the limited scope of judicial review, he ought to examine the important factors to be considered in Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The discretion exercised by the appellate authority should be reflected in the order. Mere making a statement that he had gone through the findings and agreed with the finding does not satisfy the requirements of exercise of appeal jurisdiction."
(xiv) In an order in W.P.No.613 of 2006 dated 19.1.2009 in K.Syed Yaseen vs. the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, City Police, Chennai in paragraph 35 among other things has held as follows:
"35. Both the appellate/revisional authority have not considered the findings of the enquiry officer that the petitioner did not assault the complainant, Thiru Neelamegam, or any other person during the scuffle said to have happened between the petitioner's brother and the complainant, over the dispute in respect of election. It is also evident that both the authorities have failed to consider as to whether mere presence of the delinquent/petitioner is sufficient to constitute the criminal charge of assaulting the complainant with knife and casurarians sticks. There is absolutely no discussion about the explanation submitted by the petitioner regarding his presence at the place of occurrence and the appellate/revisional authorities, in my considered opinion, have failed to exercise their statutory duty contemplated in Rule 6 an 15 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules."
(xv) In Uma Nath Pandey v. State of U.P.,(2009) 2 CTC 185, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at page 186 in paragraphs 10 and 15 has observed hereunder:
"Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice.
Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied always expressly in a statute or in rules framed thereunder. They may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute. What particular rule of natural justice should be implied and what its context should be in a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the statute under which the enquiry is held. The old distinction between a judicial act and an administrative act has withered away. Even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be consistent with the rules of natural justice.
(xvi) In T.Ramamoorthy vs. the Secretary, Sri Ramakrishna Vidyalaya High School, Tirupparaithurai, Tiruchirappali District and 3 others, 1998 WLR 641, this Court at page 646 in paragraph 6 has observed as follows:
"The decision of the learned Single Judge which is the subject matter of appeal before us, is liable to be set aside on the basis of the principles laid down by the Division Bench reported in 1996 (II) CTC 577 alone which squarely governed this case against the Management. In addition to be reason already assigned therein, we may also add that if the statutory provision enacted by the Legislature prescribed a particular mode for terminating the service or dismissing the teaching or a non-teaching staff of a school, it can and has to be done not only in that manner alone; but it cannot be done in any other manner too. This principle that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, things must be done in that way and not otherwise and that other method of performance is necessarily precluded, is not only well settled, but squarely applies to this case also in construing the scope of the power as also its exercise by the management under Section 22 of the Act."
(xvii) In State of Jharkhand and others vs. Ambay Cements and another, 2005 (1) CTC 223, the Supreme Court held that Cardinal rule of interpretation is that where a Statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in manner prescribed and not in any other way etc. (xix) In Madhura Prasad vs. Union of India and others, (2007) 1 SCC 437, at page 438, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the procedures relating to conduct of a disciplinary proceeding have been laid down by the Rules and the authority was bound to follow the same scrupulously. It is one thing to say that the disciplinary authority wanted the enquiry officer to state the points to clear the said findings arrived at by him on each of the charges separately, but he did not have jurisdiction to issue the direction under either of the sub-rules of Rule 10 etc. In page 439, it is further held by the Supreme Court as follows:
"Even if the enquiry officer had, in his first report, proceeded on surmises and conjectures as was observed by the High Court, the disciplinary authority could disagree with the said finding but it was, therefor, required to record its reasons. No reason was recorded. Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 10 aim at achieving the same purpose. If sufficient materials are not available on record, a direction for holding a further enquiry may be issued in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 so as to enable the department to lead further evidence before him. For the said purpose also, reasons are required to be recorded by the disciplinary authority. An opportunity of hearing to the delinquent officer is required to be given. However, in the event, the disciplinary authority comes to the conclusion that the conclusion arrived at by the enquiry officer on the basis of materials placed by the parties are incorrect, he may disagree with the said findings but even therefor, he is required to record reasons in support thereof. The requirement of sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3) having not been complied with, the enquiry officer could not have arrived at a different finding.
Also, in paragraph 19 of the said judgment at page 444, it is laid down as follows:
"19. When an employee, by reason of an alleged act of misconduct, is sought to be deprived of his livelihood, the procedures laid down under the sub-rules are required to be strictly followed. It is now well settled that a Judicial Review would lie even if there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. If statutory authority uses its power in a manner not provided for in the statute or passes an order without application of mind, judicial review would be maintainable. Even an error of fact for sufficient reasons may attract the principles of natural review."
(xx) In Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd., rep.by its Chairman, Kothari Buildings, 114, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkm, Chennai 34 vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., 2009 (4) LW 242, in paragraph 10, it is observed hereunder:
"10. Any order passed against the principles of natural justice or in violation of a statutory provisions is regarded to be illegal, "Legality" and "regularity" are well understood terms and well recognised grounds for interference, on appeal or revision. An order is illegal, if it is opposed to any enactment or any rule having the force of law. It is irregular if the procedure followed is in violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play (see Kesava Rao vs Subbaraju, AIR 1957 AP 55)."
175. On the side of the respondents, the Learned Counsel relies on the Division Bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in B.Balalsudarshan vs. Registrar (Management) High Court of Andhra Pradesh and another, 1996 (5) SLR 694 at page 698, wherein inter alia, the Andhrapradesh High Court held as follows:
"In the present case also, we find that the appellate order demonstrates that the 1st respondent after consideration of the appeal of the petitioner and the connected record held that there was no substance in the appeal and also held that the punishment awarded was proper. There is nothing in the said order to indicate or suspect that the 1st respondent did not apply its mind. In State Bank of India v. S.S. Koshal, 1994 Supp.(2) SCC 468: (1995 (5) SLR 181 (SC)], the rule considered by the Supreme Court was Rule 51(2) of the rules applicable to the employees of the State Bank of India providing for an appeal and the manner in which the appellate authority should consider the appeal. The Supreme Court held as follows:
"The High Court has taken the view that the rule requires the appellate authority to pass a speaking order even if it is an order of affirmance. For the purpose of this case, we shall assume the said view to be the correct one. Even so we are not satisfied that the appellate order is not a speaking order. We have already extracted the appellate order in full hereinbefore, which shows that it considered at length the facts of the case including the fact that the appellate authority (sic disciplinary authority) had differed from the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of the two charges. The appellate authority then says that it considered the relevant grounds of appeal and after considering the facts of the case came to the conclusion that there was no substance in the appeal. In view of the fact that it was an order of affirmance, we are of the opinion that it was not obligatory on the part of the appellate authority to say more than this as the order as it is, shows application of mind. The order cannot be characterised as a non-speaking order."
This decision clearly supports the view we have taken."
176. At this stage, we deem it appropriate to recall the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Mann vs. Director of Education (Basic) and others, (2006) 7 SCC 558, wherein at paragraphs 6 to 9, it is observed and held hereunder:
"6. The following contentions have been raised by the appellant:
a) the charge-sheet is vague, and
b) no copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the appellant.
These are the two main grounds which have been urged before the learned Single Judge as well as before us.
7. With regard to the first ground, as noticed above, in the charges framed on 1.2.1989 he was called upon to submit a reply within three weeks of the receipt of charge-sheet. It appears that he had replied to the charges on 17.2.1989 but no ground was taken that the charge-sheet was vague and he was unable to effectively give reply to the charges. The appellant also participated in the disciplinary proceedings without demur and he is now estopped from raising such issue.
8. The second ground that no copy of the enquiry report had been furnished to the appellant thereby violating the principle of natural justice has also no substance. On this ground the learned Judge recorded a finding that the appellant was unable to show as to how he has been prejudiced for non-furnishing of the copy of the report. We agree with the finding of the learned Judge of the High Court.
9. By now it is well settled principle of law that the doctrines of principle of natural justice are not embodied rules. They cannot be applied in a straitjacket formula. To sustain the complaint of violation of the principle of natural justice one must establish that he has been prejudiced by non-observance of the principle of natural justice. As held by the High Court the appellant has not been able to show as to how he has been prejudiced by non-furnishing of the copy of the enquiry report. The appellant has filed a detailed appeal before the Appellate Authority which was dismissed as noticed above. It is not his case that he has been deprived of making effective appeal for non-furnishing of copy of enquiry report. He has participated in the enquiry proceedings without any demur. It is undisputed that the appellant has been afforded enough opportunity and he has participated throughout the enquiry proceedings, he has been heard and allowed to make submission before the Enquiry Committee."
177. In the instant case on hand, the writ petitioner Ragunathan has taken part in the domestic enquiry proceedings and on his behalf, cross-examination of witnesses has been done. In his explanation dated 27.11.2003 to the charge memo dated 24.9.2003, the petitioner has taken a plea that the charge is vague and bereft of particulars. Though the petitioner Ragunathan has taken the plea that the charge Nos.1 to 3 are vague and he has denied the charge No.4, it is to be pointed out by this Court that he has participated in the disciplinary proceedings before the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority without any demur and it is not his case that he was not in a position to reply the charges and since he has taken part in the domestic enquiry proceedings, it is not open to him to raise a plea that the charges were vague because in law he has been estopped from raising the plea that the charges were vague and have caused prejudice to him.
178. In the present case, the Meeting of the Administrative Committee of this Court on 16.6.2000 at 3.30 p.m., in the Chamber of Acting Chief Justice in regard to Subject No.8 relating to the complaint against R.Balasubramanian (formerly Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, R.Alageswaran, Sheristadar, Principal District Court, Dindigul and N.Ragunathan, Assistant, Principal District Court, Dindigul, was conducted and based on the report of the Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, it was resolved that the copies of the Report of Special Officer, Vigilance Cell, High Court, Madras to be furnished to R.Balasubramanian, formerly Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, R. Alageswaran, Sheristadar, Principal District Court and N. Ragunathan, Assistant, Principal District Court, Dindigul and they were directed to submit their explanations on the report to the High Court within 15 days.
179. The Administrative Committee on 9.1.2001 at 3.45 p.m., in the chamber of the Hon'ble Chief Justice in the Minutes had considered the explanation submitted by R.Balasubramanian (formerly Principal District Judge, Dindigul), R. Alageswaran, (formerly Sheristadar, Principal District Court, Dindigul) and M. Ragunathan (formerly Assistant, Principal District Court, Dindigul) and found the same were not satisfactory and directed the charges be framed against them.
180. In the Minutes of the Meeting of the Hon'ble Administrative Committee held on 7.8.2003 in the chamber of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.Chockalingam was appointed as Enquiring Judge to conduct the departmental enquiry aginst R.Balasubramanian, Judicial Officer and two other ministerial staff. The draft charge was approved and the charge proceedings were directed to be issued as per the direction of the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority dated 25.8.2003.
181. The 1st delinquent R.Balasubramanian (formerly Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, then Principal District Judge, Dindigul) and two other ministerial staff namely the 2nd delinquent ( Alageswaran ) and the 3rd delinquent (Ragunathan ) were supplied with copies of the documents sought for by them in their letters to submit their written statement of defence and time was granted to file their written statement till 28.11.2003. On 10.12.2003, the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority held that written statement of delinquents found not satisfactory and ordered for enquiry besides appointing the Registrar/Special Officer, Vigilance Cell as Presenting Officer.
182. The Hon'ble Administrative Committee in its meeting held on 20.4.2004 was of the opinion that R.Balasubramanian, Principal District Judge, Pudukottai is found to be not eligible to continue any further beyond the age of 50 years and as such he is retired compulsorily in consonance with F.R. 56(2) as his continuance in service beyond 50 years is against public interest.
183. The Meeting of the Hon'ble Judges held on 21.4.2004 at 1.30 p.m resolved to approve the minutes of the Administrative Committee dated 20.4.2004 in regard to the compulsory retirement of R.Balasubramanian, Principal District Judge, Pudukottai.
184. The Government was addressed for issuance of necessary orders compulsorily retiring R.Balasubramanian, Principal District Judge, Pudukottai under F.R.56(2) on attaining the age of 50 years and accordingly G.O.863, Public (Spl.A) Department dated 24.6.2004 has been issued and the same was served on the officer on 24.6.2004 and the findings of the Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.Chockalingam (The Hon'ble Enquiring Authority), was accepted by the Administrative Committee, further action was to be taken in the departmental enquiry initiated against the two Ministerial staff, namely R. Alageswaran and N. Ragunathan. Accordingly, the copies of the findings of the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority were directed to be forwarded as per the order of the Hon'ble Enquiring Authority to R. Alageswaran, Sheristadar, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirunelveli and N. Ragunathan, Assistant, Additional Sub Court, Salem to enable them to file their further representation on the findings of the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority within 15 days from the date of receipt of the proceedings.
185. The representations of R. Alageswaran, formerly Sheristadar, Principal District Court, Dindigul and N. Ragunathan, formerly Assistant, Principal District Court, Dindigul were received and on the same being submitted, they were directed to be placed before the Hon'ble Administrative Committee by the Hon'ble M.Chockalingam,J. The report of the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority M.Chockalingam, J was accepted by the Administrative Committee in the Minutes of the Meeting of the Administrative Committee held on 14.12.2004 at 4.30 p.m., and the further representations of the officers, namely R. Alageswaran, formerly Sheristadar, Principal District Court, Dindigul and N. Ragunathan, formerly Assistant, Principal District Court, Dindigul were considered and rejected and the officers concerned were ordered to be dismissed from service.
186. The officers R. Alageswaran and N. Ragunathan after being dismissed from service filed individual appeals and they were directed to be placed before the Hon'ble Administrative Committee by the Hon'ble Chief Justice as per order dated 7.7.2005. In the minutes of the Hon'ble Administrative Committee meeting held on 17.8.2005 at 3.30 p.m., it was resolved to reject the appeals of R.Alageswaran and N. Ragunathan.
187. It is not out of place for this Court to point out that a person is said to 'corrupt' another when the former draws the latter aside from the path of rectitude and duty by a Bribe or by supply and service. The term 'corrupt' means the payment or promise of a Bribe.
188. A reasonable preponderance of probabilities is enough to support a verdict in a departmental action. The Government Servants/Judicial officers, certainly do have an obligation of Fair play. They shall not use their office as a premium or Lever for acquiring pelf from persons placed in the circumstances in which they are naturally anxious to humour them. The acceptance spells "demand" because no public officer or an employee can dream of accepting any sum in cash or kind from a stranger without being some principle existing for some and such cause will amount to demand.
189. The question whether a thing was or not of a 'value', does not depend upon its market price. It may be a receipt of priceless value. The question is one of fact which has to be decided in each case having regard to the value of prices in a thing and occasion which led to its being presented. In such cases intention or motive is material not because it is a necessary ingredient of an offence but because it tends to explain reasons for the acceptance.
190. The departmental proceedings are meant to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by removing the undeserving Bad Elements. In the interest of administration, undesirable elements are to be thrown out and any charge of misdemeanor must be enquired into and action taken in accordance with the Rules. The charge sheet had to disclose with adequate clarity and precision. The charge levelled against the employee and its requirement is one of the essential adjuncts of the concept of reasonable and adequate opportunity of defending oneself. The law requires that before the charge sheet is issued and framed, the Appropriate Authority has to satisfy that there are good reasons for initiating departmental proceedings and it may be arrived at a decision ordinarily.
191. Even when charges framed are vague, the fact that the charged employee participated in an enquiry would not exonerate the delinquent to bring home the charges and such participation would not confer any validity of the proceedings. It is to be remembered that a charge sheet does not disclose any Misconduct. Only, if the charge sheet has been issued or framed contrary to law, that is liable to be interfered with.
192. As far as the Departmental proceedings against the writ petitioners, it could not be said that they are based on ill-conceived or motivated or frivolous complaints.
193. Only if the charges are totally vague and they do not disclose any misconduct, a court of Law or a tribunal is justified in law to go into the issue as to whether, for which the charges were framed, the charges are true and whether the said charges could be gone into as per the decision in Deputy Inspector General of Police vs. K.A.Swaminathan, 1997 (2) LLJ 1011.
194. The term 'colour of office' as per Wharton's Law Lexicon 14th Edition page 214 is that an act is said to be done under colour of office when it is unjustly done by the counternance of an office, being grounded upon corruption, to which the office is as a shadow and colour. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases 7th Edition Vol.I at page 455, the term 'colour of office' signifies an act evil done by the counternance of an office and it bears a dissembling face of the right of office, whereas the office is but a veil to the falshood, and the thing is grounded upon the Vice and the Office is as a shadow to it.
195. It is enough if a public servant, who accepts the gratification takes it by inducing the belief or by holding out that he would render assistance to the giver with any other public servant and the giver gives the gratification under that belief. Corruption is the greatest enemy of every free civilised society.
196. Coming to the aspect of 'Hearsay Evidence', it is to be pointed out that 'Hearsay Evidence' cannot be shut out and even when an officer of the bank, who has no personal knowledge of transactions was deposing on the basis of material on record and his evidence could not be termed from his own knowledge and necessarily has to be hearsay and hence this part of the evidence cannot be stifled as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.R.Ramaraj Vs. Spl. Court Bombay, AIR, 2003 SC 3039.
197. In a Departmental Enquiry placing reliance on the evidence tendered by witnesses, based on hearsay is not an allergic one and in the departmental proceedings proving the charges only to be done based on acceptance of probabilities of the case. In the departmental proceedings like that of a criminal trial charges need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt as opined by this Court.
198. There is no embargo against reception of Hearsay Evidence in departmental enquiries. The extent to which such evidence may be received and used must depend on the facts and circumstances of the case and the principles of natural justice. Hearsay evidence which the courts unhesitatingly reject can be used in departmental proceedings as per the decision in M.R.Govindan vs. Director of Government Examinations, 1978 (2) SLR at page 637 Madras. If the hearsay evidence comes from a credible source in domestic enquiry, it is held admissible as per the decision in Zonal Manager, LIC of India vs. Mohan Lal Saraf, 1978 (2) SLR 868 J & K.
199. An enquiry officer conducting an enquiry against the public servant is not bound by the direct rules of evidence. Section 114(b) illustration of the Evidence Act is not to be literally applied and it is open to the officer to hold a public servant guilty on the basis of an accomplice evidence as per the decision in Anil Bihari Saran vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1967 Patna at page 43. Also the inquiry officer can act on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of accomplice or partison witnesses as per the decision in D.Made Gowda vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 Mysore 220.
200. 'Hearsay Evidence' is permissible in a departmental inquiry but the evidentiary value of the testimony is to be objectively considered as per decision in State of Haryana vs. Mohan Singh, 1985 (2) SLR P & H 116.
201. If a 'Hearsay Evidence' has credibility and reasonable nexus, the same can be accepted. The administrative Tribunals/departmental enquiries are to be careful in evaluating the hearsay evidence materials and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act.
202. In Charat Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1990 (7) SLR P & H 14, as regards the non-examination of the passengers from whom fares were collected, the Hon'ble High Court has held that the same is not material and the statement of the Checking Inspector cannot be held to be inadmissible being based on hearsay evidence.
203. A contemporary statement pertaining to the charges levelled against the petitioner/delinquents by the witnesses concerned, which certainly accompany a relevant fact, then it can be accepted as a trustworthy one. Certainly, the Hearsay evidence or circumstantial evidence do have a probative value and therefore the contra plea taken by the petitioner that Hon'ble Enquiry Authority had placed reliance upon on Hearsay evidence on witnesses in regard to the charges levelled against the Delinquents (Writ Petitioners) are devoid of merits and they are rejected by this court.
204. Viewed in this perspective, this Court is of the considered view that Hearsay evidence as spoken to by the witnesses examined before the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority and subsequently relied on by the enquiry authority in coming to the conclusion as regards the charges levelled against the delinquents (writ petitioners) were proved could not be considered by any means an "illegal one". Moreover, in a Departmental Enquiry that too pertaining to serious charge of bribery etc., it is difficult to get a direct evidence. However, the circumstantial evidence, Hearsay evidence emanated from the facts and circumstances of the case which float on the surface and tendered by the witnesses concerned and if they are cogent, convincing and coherent one could safely be relied upon.
205. As a matter of fact, we are of the considered view that the charges levelled against the petitioners/delinquents as framed against them by the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority are not a vague one. Further, it could not be said by any stretch of imagination that the petitioners were unable to understand the tenor of the charges levelled against them. As a matter of fact, the Delinquents had taken part before the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority in the disciplinary proceedings and when the witnesses were examined, they were also cross-examined on their side. Adequate and Ample opportunities were provided to the Delinquents especially the petitioners before us in W.P.Nos.2549 of 2006 and 38511 of 2005.
206. In Domestic enquiry, the strict rules of Evidence Act are not applicable. But the principles will squarely apply. There is no illegality in regard to the acceptance of the statement of one Ponraj (deceased at the time of conduct of Domestic enquiry), notwithstanding the objections of the petitioners. The statement of said Ponraj marked as Ex.P.12 and under the Evidence Act, if a person is acquainted with the signature of the deceased, who has given statement of if the said statement can be vouchsafed, there is no express or implied bar in law to accept such statement, in our considered opinion.
207. It is settled principle of law that when there is some evidence to link the petitioners to the charges levelled against him, as borne out from the enquiry proceedings, which reasonably support the finding, then the same could be accepted. Even the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority's report/findings dated 17.4.2004 could not be quashed merely because he relied upon the Hearsay evidence of witnesses, when it certainly had a reasonable nexus to the charge and it possesses a probative value of a prudent mind, in our considered opinion.
208. The non-examination of witnesses (as regards the direct evidence) for which though no explanation was offered by the Department, yet if the Hearsay evidence tendered by departmental witnesses relied on the side of the prosecution had pointed out to a bona fide reasonable and legitimate nexus to the charges levelled against the delinquent, which certainly had a probative value to average prudent mind, then no infirmity could be seen in regard to that course of action adopted by the Enquiry officer.
209. Admittedly, Discipline is the foundation of any orderly and civilised society. The Government servants/employees are to conform to a system of Rules of conduct enjoyed upon by them in the discharge of duties. They ought to observe certain standards of Dignity, Discipline and Decorum in relation to their dealings with duties to the public even in their private life.
210. The term 'misconduct' is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action where no discretion is left except what necessity may demand. Misconduct is a generic term and means "to conduct amiss, to mismanage, wrong or improper conduct, bad behaviour, unlawful behaviour or conduct". It includes malfeasance, misdemeanor, delinquency and offence. If a Government servant conducts himself in a way inconsistent with due and faithful discharge of his duty in service, it is misconduct. Misconduct is something mor than mere negligence. It is the intentional performance of some act, which the doer knows to be wrong or which he does recklessly not caring what the result may be as per the decision in Rasabathi Bewa vs. Union of India, AIR 1961 Ori. 113 . What is misconduct will naturally depend upon the circumstances of each case as per the decision in Agnani vs. Badridas, 1963 (1) LLJ 684 SC.
211. The test of misconduct is whether the act or omission has reasonable connection with the nature and conditions of his service or whether the act or omission has cast any reflection upon the reputation of the member of the service for integrity or devotion to duty as a public servant as per the decision in S.Govinda Menon vs. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1274.
212. If a public servant is required to maintain integrity and devotion to duty, he is required to keep within the bounds of that administrative decency which goes by the name of civilised administration as per the decision in Hari Prasad Singh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, AIR 1972 Cal. 271.
213. We also feel it appropriate, at this juncture, to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY VS. SHRISHKUMAR RANGRAO PATIL (AIR 1997 SC 2631), wherein in para No.16, it has been held as follows:
"16. Corruption, appears to have spread everywhere. No facet of public function has been left unaffected by the putrefied stink of corruption. Corruption, thy name is depraved and degraded conduct. Dishonesty is thine true colour; thine corroding effect is deep and pervasive; spreads like lymph nodes, cancerous cells in the human body spreading as wild fire eating away the vital veins in the efficacy of public functions. It is a sad fact that corruption has its roots and semification in the society as a whole. In the widest connotation, corruption includes improper or selfish exercise of power and influence attached to a public office. The root of corruption is nepotism and apathy in control on narrow considerations which often extend passive protection to the corrupt officers. The source and succour for acceptability of the judgment to be correct, is upright conduct, character, absolute integrity and dispassionate adjudication as hallmarks. The conduct displayed on and off the Bench becomes centre stage of the judicial officer. Fallen standard of rectitude is the bane for lost faith of the people, tending to defeat the constitutional scheme of conferment of the powers of judicial review or decision according to law unless checks and corrective measures are applied and enforced. The conferment of exclusive power of judicial review on the judiciary may become a means to personal gain or advantage. The lymph nodes (cancerous cells) of corruption constantly keep creeping into the vital veins of the judiciary and the need to stem it out by judicial surgery lies on the judiciary itself by its self-imposed or corrective measures or disciplinary action under the doctrine of control enshrined in Articles 235, 124(6) of the Constitution. It would, therefore, be necessary that there should be constant vigil by the High Court concerned on its subordinate judiciary and self-introspection. What is most necessary is to stem out the proclivity of the corrupt conduct rather than catch when the corrupt demands made and acceptance of illegal gratification. Corruption in judiciary cannot be committed without some members of the Bar becoming privy to the corrupt. The vigilant watch by the High Court, and many a time by the members of the Bar, is the sustaining stream to catch the corrupt and to deal with the situation appropriately. At the same time the High Court is the protector of the subordinate judiciary. Often some members of the Bar, in particular, in Muffasil Courts, attempt to take undue advantage of their long standing at the Bar and attempt to abuse their standing by bringing or attempting to bring about diverse forms of pressures and pinpricks on junior judicial officers or stubborn and stern and unbendable officers. If they remain unsuccessful, to achieve their nefarious purpose, some members of the Bar indulge in mud-slinging without any base, by sending repeated anonymous letters against the judicial officer questioning their performance/capacity/integrity. The High Court should, therefore, take care of the judicial officers and protect them from such unseeming attempts or pressures so as to maintain their morale and independence and support the honest and upright officers."
214. Be that as it may, a Judicial Review is permissible only on the ground of arbitrariness or when there is a concrete proof of arbitrariness by evidence of discrimination. When an administrative action is challenged, then one has to see whether the said action is a rational or a reasonable one. While making judicial review, courts of law are to see from the angle of decision making process and the approach of the courts will be from the wednesbury principles, namely to inquire if on the materials available on record, a reasonable prudent man would arrive on the decision that is under challenge. Equally, it is to be noted that while exercising the powers of judicial review, a court of law does not become an appellate forum. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is very limited and generally addressed to the quantum of punishment. If the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary authority or the Appellate authority shocks the judicial conscience of High Court, then the Hon'ble High Court can mould the relief on appropriate fashion.
215. In the case on hand, we are of the considered view that the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority had conducted objectively and dispassionately not merely the procedural stages of the Enquiry but also in dealing with the Evidence and the material on record. While he rendered his findings in his report, the conclusion arrived at by the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority in his report dated 17.4.2004 that charges were proved against the petitioners are clearly based on evidence and certainly they were not matters outside the record and it could not also be said that his findings were based on misreading of the evidence. Indeed, sufficiency of evidence on which the disciplinary authority had acted would be beyond the scrutiny of a court of law, provided there was some evidence to support his conclusion. Only when there was no evidence, the finding of the enquiry authority or disciplinary authority would become vitiated by an error of law. But, in the present case relating to the petitioners there were oral evidence of witnesses as well as documentary evidence and therefore the conclusion/findings arrived at by the enquiry authority in holding that the charges levelled against the petitioners were proved, would not be termed as a perverse one. Per contra, the said findings of the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority are legitimate, bona fide and reasonable one.
216. Therefore, it cannot be said that the findings of the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority dated 17.4.2004 that the charges levelled against the petitioners were proved, are perverse and not based on record. Per contra, the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority's findings are well founded one. The Hon'ble High Court/ 1st respondent on the administrative side had considered the Administrative appeals filed by the petitioners R. Alageswaran and N. Ragunathan and rejected them. It is not necessary that detailed reasons are spelt out when the grounds raised questioning the order of the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority or other competent authority, are devoid of merits. Viewing it from any angle, it could not be said that the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority or the High Court had not applied its mind to the subject matter in issue and we are of the view that for rejecting the Appeals filed by the Delinquents (writ petitioners) or aggrieved Bhere was no obligation on the part of the appellate authority to see more than what it had applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.
217. It is an axiomatic principle of law that detailed reasons need not be furnished or given when the order appealed against by the particular persons are devoid of any substance.
218. The 2nd respondent had considered the appeal of the petitioners for objection of the petitioners to the enquiry report submitted by the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority dated 20.1.2005 and in a dispassionate manner and in fact it only rightly accepted the report of the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority and subsequently imposed the punishment of dismissal, which could not be said to be a harsh/disproportionate or excessive one, considering the gravity of the charges levelled against the petitioners. For the charges levelled against the petitioners and for the proved charges, we are of the considered view that there is no place for generosity or to show sympathy by a Judicial Forum to the petitioners since it would amount to a misplaced sympathy. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the punishment is to suit the offences/charges and the offenders/Delinquents. Though it should not be so disproportionate to the findings as to shock the judicial conscience, the punishment of dismissal imposed on the petitioners is only a proportionate one and not at all a disproportionate one. In the instant case, the punishment of dismissal imposed on the writ petitioners could not be considered as an arbitrary action made by the High Court. The Hon'ble Enquiry Authority had rested his findings purely based on evidence of witnesses as spoken to in the Disciplinary proceedings and also based on the Documentary evidence. Therefore, the plea of the petitioners that the Hon'ble Enquiry Authority had submitted its report/findings to the effect that the charges levelled against them were proved, based on surmises, conjectures are an otiose one. In short, the punishment of dismissal imposed by the Hon'ble High Court on the petitioners is not an excessive, fanciful and whimsical one. In any event, it is not a disproportionate one, considering the overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the present cases in a cumulative and integral manner. Viewed in that perspective, the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners are devoid of merits and accordingly they fail.
219. Before parting with the cases, we pertinently point out that the 1st delinquent R.Balasubramanian (formerly Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul and later Principal District Judge, Dindigul) filed W.P.No.371 of 2006 against the order in G.O.Ms.No.893, Public (Special-A) Department, dated 24.6.2004 compulsorily retiring him from service by invoking Rule 56(2) of the Fundamental Rules etc., and the same was dismissed by this Court on 8.6.2010.
W.P.Nos.2549 of 2006 and 38511 of 2005
220. In the result, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
ajr To
1. Registrar General High Court Madras High Court Campus Chennai