The petitioner was working as a Head Constable at Nedumkandam Police Station.

2. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the allegation that the petitioner abused his position as a public servant and committed criminal misconduct by demanding bribe of Rs.2,000/- from one Shri.V.T.Saseendran, father of Shri.Rajeev, an accused in Crime No.10/2002 and threatened him that on failure to pay the bribe, his son will be tortured, accepted Rs.200/-, and that as a result thereof, Shri.Saseendran committed suicide. Ext.P1 is the memo of charges and Ext.P2 is the reply submitted by the petitioner.

3. Subsequently, by Government Order dated 04/07/2005, the matter was referred to the Vigilance Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, for enquiry as provided under the Kerala Police (Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1958. Before the Tribunal, witnesses were examined and Exts.P3 to P9 are the depositions of P.Ws. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 14 & 15. Evidence was closed, parties were heard and along with its report, the Vigilance Tribunal submitted Ext.P10 recommendation to the Government, recommending to impose a penalty of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect. Accepting Ext.P10 recommendation, Ext.P11 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, which states that a copy of the Vigilance Tribunal report is appended to it. On receipt of Ext.P11, the petitioner submitted Ext.P12 reply to the show cause notice, pleading innocence and requesting for exoneration from the charges. Finally, the Government issued Ext.P13 order dated 13/07/2009 imposing a penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P13 order.

4. Contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that this is a case of no evidence, that a copy of the enquiry report was not served on the petitioner and that hence the law laid down by the Apex Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad etc. v. B.Karunakar etc. (AIR 1994 SC 1074) has been violated. Lastly it was also contended that the findings of the Vigilance Tribunal are based entirely on hearsay evidence and hence is vitiated.

5. As already stated, several witnesses have been examined, and Exts.P3 to P9 are the depositions of P.Ws. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 14 & 15. A reading of these evidences show that except PW 8, other witnesses supported the case against the petitioner and PW 8 turned hostile. In the chief examination, all these witnesses have deposed that the deceased committed suicide only because of the misconduct of the petitioner, the details of which are disclosed in the depositions, which is also reiterated in the memo of charges.

6. However, in the cross-examination, certain contradictions have been brought out with reference to the statements given by the witnesses to the Investigating Officer under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. First of all, the evidence available before the Tribunal have been appreciated by the Tribunal and it is on such appreciation of the evidence that the Tribunal has concluded on the guilt of the petitioner. Unless this is a case of no evidence, where the conclusion of the Tribunal can be said to be a perverse one, this Court exercising its power under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India will not be entitled to sit in judgment over the factual conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence available before it. In this case, having regard to the evidence that was available before the Tribunal, as disclosed from Exts.P3 to P9, I cannot say that this is a case of no evidence or that the conclusions of the Tribunal are perverse. If so, the first plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this is a case of no evidence is only to be rejected. Further, the contradictions pointed by the petitioner are also not on material particulars and do not warrant rejection of the evidence.

7. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for