Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 90063
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Muhamed Mustaque, P. Krishna Kumar, JJ
STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
BALU VARGHESE – Respondent
OP(KAT) 440/2018
SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE, SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, SMT.N.SANTHA, SRI.V.VARGHESE, SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO, SRI.S.A.ANAND, SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA
Judicial review by the Tribunal does not permit re-evaluation of evidence unless manifest errors are present; the Tribunal found the Vigilance Tribunal's conclusions to be baseless.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Administrative Tribunal Act - Judicial Review - The respondent, an Assistant Engineer, was penalized for certifying excess payments to a contractor. The Vigilance Tribunal's findings were set aside by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal due to lack of material evidence and manifest errors in the Vigilance Tribunal's report. (Paras 1-10)
(B) Disciplinary Action - The Tribunal's role is not to re-evaluate evidence but to ensure no manifest error occurred. The Tribunal found the Vigilance Tribunal's conclusions to be baseless and erroneous. (Paras 3, 7)
Facts of the case:
The respondent was accused of certifying excess payments for work not done, leading to a disciplinary action initiated by the Vigilance Bureau. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal found the Vigilance Tribunal's report lacked material support and was not verifiable after a long period.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's order was upheld, stating that the findings of the Vigilance Tribunal were grossly erroneous and lacked material evidence.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Tribunal exceeded its authority in setting aside the Vigilance Tribunal's report and whether the findings were based on sufficient material.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Tribunal correctly identified the lack of material evidence supporting the Vigilance Tribunal's conclusions and that it was not an appellate body to re-evaluate evidence.
Result: The original petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
The respondent, while working as an Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department, was in charge of the Muvattupuzha Valley Irrigation Project. Alleging that the respondent, by erroneously certifying the work, effected excess payment to the contractor engaged in rock blasting work for the said project, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau conducted an inspection and submitted a report to the Government. The Government referred the matter for disciplinary action against the respondent to the Vigilance Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. The Vigilance Tribunal found that the measurements recorded by the respondent were in excess of the actual work done and recommended a minor penalty of barring three increments without cumulative effect and accordingly, the Government issued Ext.P13 order accepting the recommendation.
2. When the respondent moved the Kerala Administrative Tribunal against Ext.P13, the Tribunal set aside the report of the Vigilance Tribunal and Ext.P13 Government Order by observing that the findings of the Vigilance Tribunal were not based on any materials and it was not possible to verify the measurement of the items after the expiry of a long period. The Government challenges the said order mainly for the following reasons:
1.The Tribunal wrongly exercised the power of judicial review to set aside Ext.P10 report of the Vigilance Tribunal without entering into a finding that there was manifest error in the exercise of power by the Vigilance Tribunal, and thereby the Tribunal exceeded the authority conferred upon it by the legislature.
2.The reliance placed by the Tribunal on the contradictory findings in Ext.P2 and P5 reports for rejecting the conclusion of the Vigilance Tribunal is erroneous as the Vigilance Tribunal had arrived at such a conclusion after a meticulous factual evaluation of the two reports.
3.The Tribunal ought to have appreciated that judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by re-appreciating the entire evidence as an appellate authority of the Vigilance Tribunal in view of the law laid down in Union of India and Others v. Manab Kumar Guha [ (2011) 11 SCC 535 ]
3. We heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The learned Government Pleader assailed the impugned order on the grounds mentioned above and vehemently submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with a disciplinary action by re-appreciating the evidence.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand forcefully submitted that Ext.P10 report of the Vigilance Tribunal is grossly erroneous and perverse as it concluded on the basis of mere conjunctions and surmises which is evident from its finding that “in all probability, the truth lies in between the two views” (two views in Ext. P2 and P5).
5. Before arriving at a conclusion in this matter, it is profitable to go through the findings of the Tribunal which are set out hereunder:
“10. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that such a finding cannot be justified, since there was absolutely no material before the Tribunal to arrive at such a conclusion. He refers to paragraph 7.18 of Ext.P10 report which reads as follows:
"As already stated PW1 and DW1 whose evidence is relied on by the prosecution and defence respectively are technical hands whose competence in this regard is beyond challenge. But one thing that is common to Ext.P1 and D4 reports filed by them is the absence of the requisite reasoning for their conclusion. Both would agree that the particular item of work was not capable of being measured at that stage. According to PW1, this item of work was not done whereas DW1 is of the firm view that the item was done.I am not inclined to accept both the reports on account of the inconsistencies and infirmities mentioned above. As revealed from Ext.D3, Ext.D4 report was accepted by the Government in Water Resources Department. But being a fact finding body, this Tribunal is n
