Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 2644
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMAN
S. Vedarasu
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai & Another
W.P. No. 12566 of 2009 & M.P. No. 1 of 2009
Decided On : 05-07-2010
For the Petitioner:M. Ravi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mrs. Lita Srinivasan, Government Advocate.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement of legal evidence to prove charges in disciplinary proceedings and the need for a preponderance of probability based on materials on record.
Headnote:
Corruption - Disciplinary Proceedings - PC Act, 1988 - Section 7 - Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Sub-Registrar, was accused of demanding and accepting bribes for registering various documents. The Tribunal found one charge proved and the petitioner was dismissed from service, which was later modified to compulsory retirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge of demanding and accepting a bribe was not supported by legal evidence, and the dismissal order was deemed perverse.
Issues: Validity of the charges and the dismissal order, and the modification of punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was no legal evidence to support the charge of demanding and accepting a bribe, and the dismissal order was deemed perverse and quashed.
Final Decision: The court quashed the dismissal order and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.
1. The petitioner was working as a Sub-Registrar at Perambalur from 1996 to 2001. While so, one Mr.Jayaraman of Chiruvachur Village went to the office of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Trichy on 03.12.2001 at 11.30 am and lodged a complaint that he owns lands at Chiruvachur village and that he wanted to make those lands as Plots so as to sell them. For the said purpose, he wanted to grant power to one Mr.Nataraj, son of Perumal. He went to the Sub-Registrars Office at Permabalur and enquired the Sub-Registrar about the registration of a deed granting power. The Sub-Registrar demanded him to pay Rs.300/- besides the legal charges.
2. In these circumstances, Mr.Jayaraman went to the office of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Trichy and lodged a complaint and the same was registered as FIR in Crime No.12/2001 under Section 7 of PC Act, 1988. Thereafter, Thiru. Govindasamy, Inspector of Police, who registered the complaint, proceeded to investigate the matter. When Thiru. Govindasamy went to the office of the Sub Registrar for the purpose of investigation, a piece of paper was thrown out by the petitioner from his pocket, after tearing the same. He pieced those papers and found that it was written as Elam Rs.150/-, Marriage Rs.150/- and Perali Rs.300/-. He also seized the document No.3509, Hindu Marriage Application No.37/2001 and document No.3513 of 2001.
3. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to one Thiru.Ambigapathy, Inspector of Police. Thiru.Ambigapathy did further investigation. According to him, he sent the piece of paper that was thrown out by the petitioner from his pocket after tearing the same to Forensic Department after getting the signature of the petitioner to verify whether the piece of paper was written by the petitioner.
4. Thereafter, one Mr. Akbar, Inspector of Police said to have enquired various persons and recorded statements under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code. It is stated that a Criminal Case in C.C.No.3/2000 is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur.
5. While so, the Tribunal for disciplinary proceeding, Trichy issued a charge memo in R.C.No.A1/197/2004 dated 18.11.2004 to the petitioner, wherein three charges in T.D.P.Case Nos.2/2004 to 4/2004, were made.
(i) Charge in T.D.P.No.2 of 2004 is that when Mr. V. Ayub, Kalathur Village met the petitioner at 3.00 pm on 03.12.2001 for registering a document in the name of Tmt. Shakila Baham. V., on purchase of house site Plots No.159 & 160 at Elambalur from Thiru. Subramanian, Perambalur, the petitioner demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.150/- as bribe from Mr. V. Ayub, excluding registration fees of Rs.250/-.
(ii) Charge in T.D.P.No.3 of 2004 is that when Thiru.Karuppiah of Kattur, Trichy District met the petitioner at 2.00 pm on 03.12.2001 for registering his marriage with Akilandeswari that took place on 09.05.2001, the petitioner demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.150/- as bribe amount excluding the registration fees of Rs.7/-from Thiru.Karuppiah.
(iii) Charge in T.D.P.No.4 of 2004 is that when Thiru Vellamuthu of Perali Village met the petitioner at 4.00 pm on 3.12.2001 to register a document relating to the purchase of lands from M/s. Ramasamy, Vellamuthu and Manickam, the petitioner demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.300/- as bribe excluding registration charges of Rs.280/-from Vellamuthu.
6. In the enquiry, before the Tribunal, 22 witnesses were examined and 8 documents were marked, relating to all the charges in T.D.P.No.2 of 2004, T.D.P.No.3 of 2004 and T.D.P.No.4 of 2004.
7. The Tribunal recorded the findings dated 20.10.2006 that the charges in T.D.P.No.2 of 2004 and T.D.P.No.4 of 2004 were not established and that the charges levelled against the petitioner in T.D.P.No.3 of 2004 was established. Based on such findings of the Tribunal, the second respondent issued a letter dated 21.06.2007 furnishing the findings of the Tribunal and directed the petitioner to submit his views on the report of
