Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The charge framed against the petitioner was, "That you on 22-4-1995 gave a false declaration to the Munsif Magistrate, Nakarekal, stating that you have got only two daughters and only one son, whereas in fact you have got two sons and two daughters and obtained family planning incentive increment, and thereby committed fraud which amounts to misconduct."

The petitioner was given an opportunity to file a written statement, which he submitted on 11-9-1996. The petitioner did not dispute the fact that on 13-2-1995 his wife gave birth to a male child. In his written statement, he stated that earlier he had one son and one daughter only i.e., in all, he had only three children. His earlier version was that he had one son and two daughters. When confronted with the fact that even prior to 13-2-1995 he had already one son, he came forward with the story, for the first time in his written statement, - this the learned Counsel for the petitioner accepts - that he exchanged the child born to his wife on 13-2-1995 for the daughter of his sister on the fortieth day of the birth of his son and that was how he had been stating earlier that he had one son and two daughters. In an effort to substantiate this story of his, he examined his wife as D.W.1, his sister as D.W.2, and the husband of D.W.2 as D.W.5. He also examined a neighbour as D.W.3, a friend as D.W.4 and a member of the Gram Panchayat of his village as D.W.6. As against this, there was the evidence of P.W.1, the Head Clerk of the Munsif Court, Nakarekal, where the petitioner was working as Attender; P.W.2, Dr. M. Sujatha, who conducted the tubectomy operation on D.W.1; and P.W.3, the then Munsif Magistrate at Nakarekal; and there were also documents marked as Exs.P-1 to P-24. No documents were marked for the petitioner.

7. The 1st respondent, in his detailed order dated 21-4-1997, accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer after going through the entire material relating to the enquiry. The 1st respondent points out that in Exs.P-1, P-4 and P-6 i.e., the application of the petitioner dated 22-4-1995 for grant of family planning incentive increment; certificate of the petitioner dated 5-6-1995; and undertaking given by the petitioner, nothing was mentioned about the birth of a male child on 13-2-1995 and exchange of the child and that, on the other hand, the petitioner mentioned that he got one male child and two female children. The 1st respondent also points out that as per Ex.P-9 i.e. the Casual Leave letter dated 6-2-1995, filed by the petitioner, he only stated that his wife was unwell and that in his applications for leave at the time when D.W.I gave birth, he suppressed that fact. The 1st respondent then observes in his order as follows:

8. Thus, after a detailed consideration of all aspects of the matter and of the material on record, the 1st respondent, in his order dated 21-4-1997, agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer that Afteen Tarunam was the daughter of the petitioner and that he had four children i.e., two daughters and two sons and that by mis-representing that he had only three children, the petitioner claimed and obtained family planning incentive increment. On that basis, after giving further opportunity to the petitioner, he imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement instead of dismissal as proposed in the final show cause notice. We do not see how these findings of the 1st respondent can be interfered with by us in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It cannot be said that the findings are not based on any evidence, or that they are perverse and with the material on record it is impossible for any reasonable person to arrive at such conclusion.