The sufficiency of evidence in disciplinary proceedings is beyond the scope of judicial review, and the competent authorities have the discretion to determine the sufficiency of evidence. The distinction between review and revision under Rule 36A of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules was clarified.

JUDGMENT :

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

The prayer in the aforecaptioned Original Petition (KAT) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is as follows; (See page 9 of the paper book of this OP).

“(i) … … … to set aside Exhibit P5 order in OA(Ekm)No.1510/2016 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Addl. Bench, Ernakulam by allowing this Original Petition.”

2. Heard Sri B.Vinod, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners (State of Kerala and 2 others) in the OP/respondents OA before the Tribunal and Sri C.S.Manu, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent in the OP/sole applicant in the OA before the Tribunal. The prayers in Ext.P1 Original Application, OA(Ekm)No.1510/2016 filed by the respondent herein/applicant in the OA are as follows; (See pages 24 and 25 of this paper book).

“(i) Call for the records leading to Annexs.A-3, A-5 and A-7 and quash Annexs.A-3, A-5 and A-7 orders,

(ii) Allow cost of this application to the applicant.

(iii) Grant such other further reliefs that this Honourable Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The Tribunal has rendered the impugned Ext.P5 final order dated 06.01.2020 in O.A.(Ekm)No.1510/2016 holding that from the materials in the above disciplinary proceedings, it can be seen that the disciplinary authority has not even led the minimal acceptable evidence to hold the applicant guilty of the allegations in the memo of charges and that therefore the impugned orders at Annexure A3 penalty order as confirmed in Annexure A5 appellate order and Annexure A7 revisional order holding the applicant guilty and imposing on him major punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect is illegal and ultra vires and has thus quashed the impugned proceedings at Annexure A3, A7 and A8 and has allowed the main pleas in the above OA. It is this final order at Ext.P5 that is under challenge in this OP.

4. The respondent herein is a Police Personnel, holding the post of Civil Police Officer (CPO) (Ex-Police Constable) in the Police Department. He was served with Annexure A1 memo of charges dated 18.08.2007 and at that time (12.01.2007), he was working on deputation basis in the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB) under the Vigilance Department of the State Government. The sum and substance of the allegations raised against him at Annexure A1 memo of charges dated 18.08.2017 is that on the crucial day in question viz; 12.01.2007, the applicant along with one Justin Jayaraj, had wrongfully restrained one Madanan and had tried to cause physical harm to him which led to the registration of a crime as Crime No.15/2007 of Thiruvananthapuram Vattappara Police Station in which the said persons have been arrayed as accused 1 and 2 therein for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 34 of IPC. The main allegation was that the accused persons have caused physical assault on the victim concerned (Madanan). It is common ground that the above said criminal proceedings was compounded in terms of Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. which resulted in Annexure A14 order dated 28.09.2007, whereby the jurisdictional Magistrate Court concerned has thus accepted the plea for compounding based on the consent of both sides and has thus ordered the acquittal of the accused person in view of the provisions contained in Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. The case of the respondents in the OA is that they had complied with the requirements of initiation and finalisation of major penalty proceedings in accordance with the provisions contained in Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules governing the field and that mere technical acquittal of the applicant in the said crime as per Annexure A14 on the basis of compounding, will not take away the blame of the applicant and that they have led acceptable evidence to hold the applicant as guilty of the allegations raised in the memo of charges. Annexure A13 is the enquiry report