Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. In view of the aforesaid discussion and also the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the delay in issuing the charge sheet as well as the delay in holding enquiry, without any reason, vitiates the dismissal order.

15.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the non-examination of the complainant, Mr.S.Ramasubbu, in the enquiry has resulted in denial of reasonable opportunity for the petitioner in the enquiry. It is submitted that no reason is given by the respondents for the non-examination of the complainant Mr.S.Ramasubbu.

16.Infact, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason given by the respondents for non-examination of the complainant is that Mr.S.Ramasubbu died before the commencement of the enquiry. But, the same has no basis and substance. It is submitted that the respondents made certain averments without applying mind to the actual facts of the matter. It is submitted that while Mr.S.Ramasubbu died on 13.03.2001, it is stated that he was not examined as he was not alive, when the enquiry was conducted. As stated above, the enquiry took place on 26.02.2001 and 28.02.2001 and the enquiry was concluded on 28.02.2001, when Mr.S.Ramasubbu was alive. In fact the examination of prosecution witnesses were over on 26.02.2001. It is not the case of the respondents that Mr.S.Ramasubbu was bedridden and in spite of the efforts to bring him to enquiry, he was not able to come and depose in the enquiry. Paragraph 'C' of the report of the Enquiry Officer relevant for the purpose of the case is extracted here-under:

The finding recorded, as extracted above, is in terms of the charge memo. But in the enquiry, the only witness, who spoke about the demand and receipt of bribe was P.W.8, the brother of Mr.S.Ramasubbu. According to P.W.8, the delinquent demanded bribe from P.W.8 and received the amount from P.W.8. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the prosecution did not examine Mr.S.Ramasubbu, they let-in evidence conveniently by examining P.W.8, as if the demand was made from P.W.8 and the bribe was paid by P.W.8. But the same was not the charge. The other witnesses 1,2,7 and 9, nowhere stated about the payment of bribe from P.W.8 and acceptance of bribe from P.W.8. Further these witnesses were not the eye-witnesses to the incident. Hence, the prosecution, without examining the complainant, had sought to alter the charge during the enquiry, is the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The submission of the petitioner cannot be brushed aside, as there is no answer for the same from the respondents.

23.I am of the considered view that the second charge is a minor charge. Admittedly the delinquent went to the concerned village and enquired Mr.S.Ramasubbu. The delinquent sent a word to Mr.S.Ramasubbu to be present in the Panchayat Office premises at Eppodumventran village for enquiry on the complaint given by Mr.Andy. Therefore, the petitioner would not be benefited by not recording in the diary about his visit to village in any way. Hence this charge is of minor nature.

24.Taking into account the totality of the matter, the impugned orders are hereby quashed. Since the impugned orders are quashed, respondents are directed to settle the terminal benefits including pension to the legal-heirs within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of this order. The writ petition is ordered on the above terms. No costs.