Findings in disciplinary proceedings must rest on credible evidence; reliance on uncorroborated testimony without substantial support leads to arbitrary decisions.

ORDER :

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

1. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to G.O. (Ms) No.139, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection (CE2) Department, dated 29.06.2018, issued by the first respondent, whereby the provisional decision was confirmed imposing the punishment of permanent pension cut of Rs.7,867/- per month from the pension payable to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner, while serving as Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies, was issued a charge memo dated 05.05.2005 alleging that, actuated by corrupt motive and abuse of official position, he demanded illegal gratification from the complainant. It was alleged that on 31.07.2002, the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the complainant for permitting him to rejoin duty after the expiry of medical leave and, on 05.08.2002, reduced the demand to Rs.10,000/- as advance and Rs.15,000/- to be paid after rejoining duty. It was further alleged that on 13.08.2002, the petitioner accepted Rs.10,000/- and handed over the amount to his Personal Clerk, Ms. K. Banumuthy, to keep in her custody, thereby receiving illegal gratification other than legal remuneration.

3. The petitioner denied the charges. A departmental enquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer, after examining the prosecution witnesses and recording the defence statement of the petitioner, held that the charges were proved. A second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, who submitted a further representation disputing the findings. Thereafter, the first respondent, after considering the enquiry report, the petitioner’s explanation, and the opinion furnished by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, passed the impugned order imposing a permanent pension cut. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the finding of guilt rests solely on the uncorroborated testimony of PW1, the complainant. The shadow witness (PW2) did not witness the alleged demand and acceptance. PW3, who was stated to be present at the relevant time, did not support the prosecution case and was treated as hostile. It was further submitted that the chemical analyst’s report does not conclusively establish demand and acceptance. In the absence of cogent and reliable evidence, the impugned order is arbitrary and unsustainable.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the testimony of PW1, coupled with the evidence of PW11 and PW14 and the chemical analyst’s report (Ex.P6), establishes demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. It was contended that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are based on evidence on record and do not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

7. PW1 lodged a complaint with the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption alleging demand of bribe. A trap was arranged. A phenolphthalein demonstration was conducted and a pre-trap mahazar was prepared. PW1 entered the petitioner’s chamber and later gave the pre-arranged signal. The trap team thereafter entered and conducted the post-trap proceedings.

8. However, material inconsistencies emerge from the evidence. PW1 stated that PW2 accompanied him into the chamber. PW2, the shadow witness, categorically deposed that he did not accompany PW1 inside the chamber and did not witness any demand or acceptance. Thus, the shadow witness did not corroborate the complainant on the crucial aspects of demand and acceptance.

9. PW3 deposed that the complainant left the money on the