Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(Mad) 1816

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
N. Ulagaraj – Petitioner
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another – Respondents
W.P.(MD)No. 16185 of 2012
Decided On : 05-10-2020

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Porkodi Karnan for M/s. Polax Legal Solutions, Advocates.
For the Respondent:P. Mahendran Additional Government Pleader, V. Anand, Government Advocate.

The judgment emphasizes the seriousness of corruption and the need for efficient measures to combat corrupt practices in public services.

Headnote:
Corruption - Disciplinary Proceedings - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13(1)(d) - Summary
Fact of the Case:

The writ petitioner, an Office Assistant, was accused of demanding and accepting bribes on behalf of the Sub-Registrar. Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated, and the petitioner was ultimately removed from service. The petitioner challenged the punishment orders.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the charges against the petitioner were proved before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and that there was no infirmity in imposing the punishment.
Issues: The main issue was whether the charges of demanding and accepting bribes against the petitioner were proven.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and documents, to conclude that the charges against the petitioner were established beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the punishment imposed on the petitioner was upheld.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the orders of the first respondent in G.O.(D).No.40, Commercial Taxes and Registration (K) Department, dated 07.02.2011, and the proceedings of the second respondent in Pro.No.38802/AA1/2006-2 dated 18.12.2007 and to quash the same and to issue consequential directions to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits of back pay, continuity of service etc.)

The writ petitioner joined in the Registration Department as an Office Assistant on 29.09.1986. On account of the allegation of demanding and acceptance of bribe, Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against the writ petitioner as well as the Sub-Registrar concerned and a charge memo was issued by the Competent Authority. The Disciplinary Proceedings were referred to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Tirunelveli, in proceedings dated 11.12.2006 and the following charges are framed.

“Charge-1: That on 06.11.2004, he accompanied Tmt.T.Jeyajothi, formerly Sub-Registrar, Melapalayam, for the purpose of building inspection at Ward No.35, Melapalayam and there at about 11.50 a.m., on the direction of Tmt.Jayajothi, he received the bribe amount of Rs.500/- from witness Tr.Mohideen Lebbai for and on behalf of Tmt.Jeyajothi for inspecting the building and thus he abetted Tmt.Jeyajothi to receive the bribe.

Charge-2: That on 02.11.2004 at about 2.25 p.m., at the S.R.O.Melapallayam, he received the bribe amount of Rs.500/- for and on behalf of Tmt.Jeyajothi from witness Tr.Syed Hussain for registering a sale deed. On 06.11.2004 at about 1.15 a.m., at South Mohideen Pallivasal Street, he received the bribe amount of Rs.500/- for and on behalf of Tmt.Jeyajothi from witness Tr.Syed Hussain for inspecting the building and also received Rs.50/- as illegal gratification for himself from the said witness.

Charge-3: That on 18.10.2004, at about 4.15 p.m., at the S.R.O.Melapalayam, he received Rs.2000/- as illegal gratification from Tr.Kamal for and on behalf of Tmt.Jeyajothi, Sub-Registrar for registering a sale deed and further on 25.10.2004, when he went to Peria Kothpa Pallivasal Therku Keela Theru, Melapalayam, along with Tmt.Jeyajothi, Sub-Registrar for inspecting the property, at about 11.15 a.m., he received Rs.250/- as illegal gratification from Tr.Kamal for and on behalf of Tmt.Jeyajothi knowing well that it was the bribe amount.”

2. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings conducted trial and submitted its final enquiry report on 27.03.2007. Based on the enquiry report of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Tirunelveli, the Disciplinary Authority/second respondent passed the final orders on 18.12.2007 removing the writ petitioner from service. The writ petitioner filed an appeal to the first respondent on 25.01.2008 and the major penalty of removal from service was modified by the first respondent and the punishment of compulsory retirement was issued in proceedings, dated 07.02.2011. Challenging the original order of punishment of removal as well as modified punishment order of compulsory retirement, the present writ petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner vociferously contended that absolutely there is no evidence for demand and acceptance of bribe. In the absence of any evidence, there is no reason whatsoever to impose the punishment of removal as well as the modified punishment of compulsory retirement. The case of the writ petitioner is a fair case for exoneration from the charges. The allegation was mainly against the Sub-Registrar and the writ petitioner was an Office Assistant. Simply because the Office Assistant accompanied the Sub-Registrar, the allegation of bribe cannot be thrusted on the writ petitioner. Thus, the entire charges are baseless and there is no evidence to establish the allegati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document