The judgment emphasizes the importance of evidence and procedural fairness in establishing guilt and imposing disciplinary action on government servants.

The petitioner in both the above writ petitions are one and the same person, who had been voluntarily retired from the service of the State, while he was working as Junior Superintendent in the Sub Court, Thrissur. Though the misconduct alleged were in two different contexts, the punishment imposed was identical. The cases are disposed of by a common judgment, only since there is a common thread in both the matters, which points to the delinquent employee having financial dealings of a usurious nature with third parties. The misconduct alleged in one of the cases is misappropriation of amounts deposited by an Advocate and in the other, the allegation is of the delinquent employee having indulged in financial transaction of a usurious nature resulting in amassing wealth in violation of the provisions of the Government Servants' Service Rules. The writ petitions are considered separately in the judgment.

2. WP(C) No.11594 relates to the misappropriation of amounts remitted before the Junior Superintendent, the petitioner herein, as stamp value required for engrossing a final decree. The allegation raised by an Advocate at Thrissur Bar was that, he had entrusted his Junior with an amount of Rs.15,950/- as stamp value for engrossing the final decree in O.S. No.634 of 1996 of the Sub Court, Thrissur. The Junior Advocate herself along with the client took the money to the Junior Superintendent, who accepted the same, but however instructed the Junior Advocate to come later or send her Clerk to receive the receipt.

3. Subsequently, on 12.12.2002 on persistent enquiries made by the client as to the receipt of the final decree, the Junior Advocate, along with the client, again approached the Office of the Sub Court, when they were informed that the deposit had not been made on 01.04.2002 as contended by the Junior Advocate. The Receipt Books were verified and it was found that no such receipt was issued on 01.04.2002. Immediately, a complaint, Ext.P1, was filed before the District Judge, Thrissur to which a reply of total denial by Ext.P2 was made by the petitioner. The petitioner then was suspended by Ext.P3 and a charge sheet was issued as per Ext.P5. Detailed objections were raised by the petitioner as per Ext.P6. The disciplinary authority, the District Judge, hence issued Ext.P7 initiating an enquiry into the matter; the Enquiry Report of which is produced at Ext.P11.

4. The evidence at the enquiry established the guilt of the petitioner. It was categorically found by the Enquiry Officer that a sum of Rs.15,950/- was remitted by the Junior Advocate before the Junior Superintendent in the presence of the client and the Clerk. The contention that the Clerk took the money after the same was placed before the Junior Superintendent was found to be unbelievable and the same if at all true, could only be with the active connivance of the delinquent officer, was the finding.

5. The Enquiry Report was furnished to the delinquent employee by Ext.P12 dated 29.08.2003. After considering the objections of the petitioner to the Enquiry Report, the disciplinary authority by communication [Ext.P12(3)] dated 30.01.2003, concurred with the Enquiry Officer. The further objection submitted by the petitioner dated 07.10.2003 was also considered and on 07.01.2004, Ext.P14 order was passed, punishing the petitioner with compulsory retirement with effect from 06.01.2003.

6. No procedural irregularity can be found, since the petitioner was issued with notice before the enquiry and his objections considered pursuant to which the enquiry was intitiated. The petitioner was also granted every opportunity to defend his case in the enquiry initiated and was permitted to cross-examine the witnesses of the Department and allowed to examine his own witnesses. The Enquiry Report was furnished and so was his objections considered prior to the punishment imposed on the petitioner. The jurisdiction hence conferred on this Court is limited to examine as to wheth