IMPORTANT POINTS
The allegation against the writ petitioners have been adequately proved by the examination of witnesses and the available documents. The fact that more witnesses were not examined and that the evidence was not corroborated by documents is no reason to set aside the enquiry proceedings. Poulose has been a constant defaulter by absenting himself on duty, while punching his attendance with ulterior motive. He has also reciprocated the assistance rendered to him by Rasheeda Beevi, who was working in the office, by punching her card in her absence by way of proxy. The security personnel examined by the enquiry officer has testified regarding this. We do not think that more evidence, than what was adduced, is necessary to prove the complicity of the delinquents.

JUDGMENT :

Ashok Menon, J.

A.V.Poulose, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.22092/2017, was employed in the Cochin Port Trust (CPT) as a Driver, while, Rasheeda Beevi, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25148/2017, was employed as an L.D.Clerk in the same organisation. Both of them were dismissed following separate disciplinary proceedings, and they filed the aforesaid two writs challenging their dismissal and questioning the disciplinary proceedings.

2. W.P.(C) No.22092/2017 was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 26.10.2018 in which the learned Judge set aside the orders of punishment by the disciplinary authority, which was confirmed by the appellate authority at Exts.P9 and P11 and directed the respondents-CPT to reconsider the case of the petitioner A.V.Poulose from the stage of enquiry report based on the evidence already adduced, and pass orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Challenging the judgment, both the CPT as also the delinquent employee preferred appeals as W.A.Nos.209/2019 and 883/2019 respectively.

3. Relying on the judgment in W.P.(C) No.22092/2017, another learned Single Judge vide order dated 22.01.2019 in W.P.(C) No.25148/2017 filed by Rasheeda Beevi, set aside the impugned order imposing the penalty of dismissal and directed the CPT to reconsider the matter with regard to the penalty in the light of the directions in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.22092/2017. That judgment is also challenged by both the CPT and the delinquent Rasheeda Beevi by filing W.A.Nos. 1112/2019 and 1617/2019 respectively. Since both these matters are interconnected, we heard the appeals, which are disposed by this common judgment.

4. The facts in brief are thus: In the case of A.V.Poulose, the allegation against him is that while he was working as Driver, after having been on half and full day leaves on several days, he in connivance with Rasheeda Beevi, who was the office Clerk, unauthorisedly availed full day attendance after punching the 'entry' and 'exit' in the swiping machines installed at the office of the CPT, after the office hours, to create evidence that he had been working the whole day. Yet another allegation against Poulose is that he had unauthorisedly used the swiping card of Rasheeda Beevi by proxy on a date she had availed of half day casual leave and punched the exit machine in the evening, so as to make evidence regarding her having worked the whole in the office. It is also alleged that the leave applications, which were submitted, were destroyed by these two persons.

5. The disciplinary enquiry initiated against Poulose and Rasheeda Beevi separately resulted in finding them guilty of the accusations made. Major penalty of dismissal was imposed on both the delinquents. Appeals filed by them too failed. Thus, the two Writ Petitions were filed challenging the orders of the CPT.

6. The delinquents are aggrieved because, after having found that the dismissal was not sustainable, the learned Single Judge directed continuance of the proceedings from the stage of enquiry report based on the evidence already adduced. The contention of the delinquents is that after having found that the evidence against them was grossly inadequate to enter a positive finding against them on the charges framed, they should have been exonerated altogether while the Writ Petitions were allowed.

7. We heard Senior Counsel Shri E.K.Nandakumar appearing for the CPT and Advocates Smt.Mary Benjamin and Shri R.Sunil Kumar for the delinquents respectively.

8. The CPT challenges the finding of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the scope of interfering with the findings in a disciplinary proceedings by the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited, and therefore, the evidence should not have been reappraised to enter a finding that material against the delinquents is highly inadequate. Only in case it is found that there is tota