K. Thangavelu v. Kochi Refineries Limited

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH** **FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/23RD BHADRA 1934** **WA.No. 1259 of 2007 ( )** **----------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP.21071/2001 DATED 08-02-2007. ..................** **APPELLANT/(PETITIONER IN THE WP(C):** **------------------------------------------------------------** **K. THANGAVELU, MANAGER- PROJECTS, (UNDER ORDERS OF DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE), KOCHI REFINERIES LIMITED, AMBALAMUGAL- 682 302, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT "SARAVANAPPOIKAI", G-5, GANDHI NAGAR, THEKKUMBAGAM, TRIPUNITHURA-682 301, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADV. SRI.M.A.THOMASKUTTY.** ## **RESPONDENTS/(RESPONDENTS IN THE WP(C):** **----------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. KOCHI REFINERIES LIMITED, AMBALAMUGAL- 682 302, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR.** **2. GENERAL MANAGER- PROJECTS, KOCHI REFINERIES LIMITED, OFFICE OF THE REGISTERED OFFICE AT AMBALAMUGAL, PIN- 682 302, ERNAKULAM-DIST.** **3. DIRECTOR - REFINERIES, KOCHI REFINERIES LIMITED, OFFICE OF THE REGISTERED OFFICE AT AMBALAMUGAL, PIN- 682 302, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** - ***4. THOMAS PHILIP (INQUIRY OFFICER), CHERUKARA PHILSTEAD, M.IX/386, CHEMPAKASSERY ROAD, ALUVA- 683 101. (DELETED)** *** R4 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER IN I.A.710/2010 DATED 22/09/2010.** **R1 TO R3 BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR.** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-02-2012, THE COURT ON 14-09-2012 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag.C.J & V.CHITAMBARESH, J.** ## **----------------------------------------------** ## **W.A.No. 1259 of 2007** ## **----------------------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 14[th] day of September, 2012 JUDGMENT** ## **Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J.** Appellant herein is before us, aggrieved by the judgment dated 8.2.2007 of the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.21071 of 2001. A departmental enquiry came to be initiated against the appellant herein for the following misconducts: _“i) When the contractor Shri.K.Mohanan approached you for submitting his bills dated 01.09.1999 in connection with the above work, you had advised him to meet you after collecting the payments for his bills from the Company._ - _ii. When the contractor Shri.K.Mohanan met you on_ _15[th] September, 1999 at about 08.30 hrs., you demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) from him as bribe or reward for awarding the contract to him and also assured him that if this amount was paid, he would be shown the favour of awarding company contracts in future also._ _Iii. On the same day i.e. 15[th] September, 1999 at about 12.00 hrs. when the contractor came to your office room with the amount of Rs.10,000/- demanded by you, you advised him_ 2 _**WA.1259/07**_ _to proceed to the Company car parking area near the Company main gate and give this amount to you over there._ - _iv. You then came to the car parking area and entered in your car (reg.No.KL7 K 727) and received the amount of Rs.10,000/- offered by Shri.K.Mohanan and immediately thereafter you drove your car and left the Company premises._ - _v. The CBI officers then followed your car to your residence and recovered the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- from you which was kept inside your car.”_ 2. Apart from departmental enquiry, a criminal case also came to be registered against him for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the P.C Act”). When he was dismissed from service, as he was found guilty of the misconducts referred above in maintaining absolute integrity, devotion to duty and also acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of the Company, he approached the appellate authority, but was unsuccessful. Similar was the fate so far as his revision is concerned. 3. Aggrieved by the same, he approached learned Single Judge, seeking quashing of Exhibits P1, P2, P31, P35, P37, P41 and P43. Learned Single Judge, after referring to various 3 _**WA.1259/07**_ contentions raised by the appellant-petitioner, has gone into each and every aspect of the contentions and ultimately held that the departmental enquiry ending with Exhibit P35 dismissal order was not arbitrary and violative of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as the detailed report of enquiry at Exhibit P31 is in accordance with the procedure, therefore, unacceptable. 4. The departmental enquiry was for the misconducts supra, which violated clauses 6.1.1, 6.1.2 and 6.1.3 of the Cochin Refineries Limited Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules (for short, “the C.R.L Rules”), which read as under: - _“6.1.1 maintain absolute integrity;_ - _6.1.2 maintain devlotion to duty; and_ - _6.1.3 do nothing which is unbecoming of an employee.”_ 5. Exhibits P1 and P2 indicate, if the allegations were true, it would amount to misconduct under clauses 27.3, 27.11 and 27.25 of the C.R.L Rules, which read as under: - _“27.3 Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with Company's business or property or of property of another person within the premises of the Company._ - _27.11 Breach of any law applicable to the Company or any service conduct discipline and appeal rules or instructions issued by the Company._ 4 _**WA.1259/07**_ - _27.25 Offer, acceptance or solicitation by employee (his family or relatives with the knowledge of the employee) of any money, favour or any other reward for retention in the Company's service or for any other special consideration.”_ 6. At the time of the disciplinary proceedings against him, he was admittedly a Manager (Projects) under the first respondent, Cochin Refineries Limited, Ambalamugal. He was placed under suspension followed by chargesheet and show cause notice at Exhibit P2 dated 23.9.1999. In the Original Petition, apart from seeking quashing of the exhibits mentioned above, he had also sought for a direction against the respondents to treat the appellant-petitioner as continuing in service, ignoring Exhibits P35 and P37 and grant him all benefits including pay, allowances etc. for the entire period. 7. According to learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, the judgment of learned Single Judge is vitiated on many grounds, both legal and factual. According to the appellant, learned Judge was not justified in considering extraneous matters while considering the merits of the case and especially with regard to acquittal of the appellant in the criminal appeal. 5 _**WA.1259/07**_ 8. It is not in dispute that though in the criminal case under the P.C Act, admittedly, he was convicted for offences punishable under the P.C Act, but however, under Sections 7 and 13 of the P.C Act, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- so far as Section 7 is concerned, and similar punishment was indicated so far as offences punishable under Section 13(2) of the P.C Act. Crl.A.No.474 of 2000 appeal came to be allowed on 6.1.2003 setting aside the conviction and sentence ordered against the appellant acquitting him giving benefit of doubt. According to learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, the learned Judge was not justified in holding that the acquittal of the appellant was not clean and honourable acquittal, as the acquittal was based on benefit of doubt. 9. Similarly, according to learned Senior Counsel arguing for appellant, the proceedings initiated in the departmental enquiry by memorandum of charges and the charge sheet framed against the appellant before the Special Judge II, C.B.I Court are not one and the same. Such opinion of learned Single Judge is erroneous and also illogical and perverse. This opinion is on account of failure to examine whether the facts and the misconducts alleged 6 _**WA.1259/07**_ in both the proceedings are one and the same. So far as this aspect of the matter, the learned counsel relies upon several judgments, especially _**Capt.M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And another**_ [(1999) 3 SCC 679] to contend that in the absence of considering the judgment in Crl.A.No.474 of 2000, both by the appellate authority and the revisional authority, those orders become erroneous, as the dismissal order was passed only on Exhibit P31 enquiry report. He relies upon following judgments reported in _**G.M.Tank v. State of Gujarat and others**_ [(2006)5 SCC 446), _**Union of India v. Jayaram**_ (AIR 1960 Madras 325) and _**Shaik Kasim v. Superintendent of Post Offices**_ (AIR 1965 Madras 502). He has also raised a contention that the enquiry report is vitiated for not extending assistance of a legal practitioner to the appellant in the domestic enquiry. He relies on _**Union of India v. Karunakaran Nair**_ (1985 KLT 680) in support of this contention. According to him, the enquiry is vitiated by non supply of documents relied on, as photostat copies were relied on and therefore, the enquiry is vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice. He relies on _**Subarna Bark v. State of Orissa and others**_ (AIR 1976 Orissa 236), _**State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal and another**_ [(1998) SCC 651) and _**South**_ 7 _**WA.1259/07**_ _**Bengal State Transport Corporation v. Sapan Kumar Mitra and others**_ [(2006)6 SCC 584] to substantiate the above contentions. 10. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents contends, memo of charges and show cause notice were issued, as the action of the appellant amounted to misconduct, as he acted in utter violation of C.R.L Rules. So far as non supply of documents or placing reliance on photostat copies, learned counsel for the respondents explains that a detailed counter affidavit was filed and especially paragraphs 14 and 15 of the counter affidavit refer to the same, which was taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge. According to him, non examination of all the witnesses has not caused any prejudice to the appellant and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Further, strenuously argues that the judgment in the Criminal Appeal indicates, it was not an honourable acquittal, therefore, learned Single Judge was justified in denying the reliefs. He relies upon _**Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. M.G.Vital Rao**_ (2012-I LLJ 320 (SC), _**State of Haryana and another v. Rattan Singh**_ [(1977)2 SCC 491, _**State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya**_ (2011-III LLJ 13 (SC)), _**Suresh Kumar v.**_ _**WA.1259/07**_ 8 _**Travancore Devaswom Board**_ (2006-I LLJ 401) and _**Commissioner of Police v. Narender Singh**_ [(2006)4 SCC 265) so far as the argument how departmental enquiry has to be proceeded, where acquittal in criminal trial was an honourable acquittal and where the acquittal in criminal case was on benefit of doubt. He also relies upon decisions reported in _**State of U.P and others v. Ramesh Chandra Mangalik**_ [(2002)3 SCC 443], _**Chandrama Tewari v. Union of India**_ [(1987) Supp. SCC 518) so far as augment of supply of documents and no prejudice being caused for non supply of irrelevant documents and materials. He also places reliance on _**Tata Oil Mills Co. v. Its Workers**_ (1964II LLJ 113) and _**Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. v. Prasad**_ (1969-II LLJ 799) with regard to summoning witnesses to substantiate the argument that in a domestic enquiry, the officer holding the enquiry cannot take valid or effective steps to compel attendance of any witness. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the enquiry officer took all possible steps to summon the witnesses. 11. The arguments of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant is the departmental enquiry report is vitiated by virtue of acquittal of the appellant in criminal case as 9 _**WA.1259/07**_ per Exhibit P39 by this Court. It is seen from the records, when the representation at Exhibit P3 was not considered by intimating the appellant as per Exhibit P4, the appellant approached this Court in O.P.No.26054 of 1999 to drop the departmental enquiry on the ground that a criminal investigation is proceeded against him on the same set of facts and allegations. As per Exhibit P5 judgment, this Court disposed of the Original Petition directing the appellant to approach the enquiry officer by filing appropriate petition for stay of the disciplinary proceedings. A representation was made before the enquiry officer, but the same came to be rejected holding, the management would be placing reliance on witnesses and documents other than those proposed to be examined and relied on by the CBI in the criminal case. It was further held that the nature of domestic enquiry is entirely different from the allegations made in the criminal case. Again he approached this Court in O.P.No.29286 of 1999 and by Exhibit P9, the Original Petition came to be dismissed holding that the nature of charges in the criminal case and the nature of charges in the domestic enquiry were not identical. An appeal, W.A.No.2766 of 1999 came to be filed and the same was disposed of by Exhibit P10 judgment holding, domestic enquiry proceedings against the 10 _**WA.1259/07**_ appellant-petitioner could continue, but based on domestic enquiry report, no final order could be pronounced till the closure of the proceedings initiated in C.C.No.15 of 1999, on the file of the Special Judge II, C.B.I, Ernakulam. With this, so far as the effort of the appellant to stall departmental enquiry pending disposal of the criminal case against him, reached finality. 12. Now the only point that has to be considered is whether the acquittal of the appellant by virtue of judgment in Crl.A.No.474 of 2000 would lead to quashing of the enquiry report, thereby vitiating the dismissal order. The learned Judge proceeded to hold as under in Crl.A.No.474/2000: _“14. On a consideration of the evidence and other circumstances in this case, I am of the view that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It follows that the appellant is entitled to an acquittal. According to me, the court below has not properly considered the broad probabilities which are brought in evidence. As stated earlier, there are inherent improbabilities and inconsistencies in the case set up by the prosecution._ _In the result, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is set aside. He is found not guilty of the offences and he is acquitted. This appeal is thus allowed.”_ 13. The gist of the decisions relied is as under: Simultaneous 11 _**WA.1259/07**_ continuance of criminal proceedings and departmental enquiry, normally can be continued, evidently, as the scope of these two proceedings is different and are independent of each other. In _**Capt.M.Paul Anthony's case**_ [(1999) 3 SCC 679] such facts were present. Based on the same set of facts sought to be proved by the same witnesses, there was acquittal of accused by rejecting the prosecution story, therefore, Their Lordships held that ex-parte disciplinary enquiry could not be sustained against the delinquent. It is settled position, once an employee honourably acquitted in criminal trial during the pendency of departmental proceedings, finding contrary in the departmental enquiry, is unjust and unfair. The onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. Their Lordships of the Madras High Court, by dealing with the words 'honourable acquittal', said, there is no legal significance of an expression like 'honourable acquittal', as such words do not find a place in the Code of Criminal Procedure. 14. The gist of the case relied upon by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent is as under: As the standard of proof and scope of two proceedings, i.e., criminal case 12 _**WA.1259/07**_ and departmental enquiry are entirely different from each other, acquittal in a criminal case cannot be a ground for holding dismissal of workman in departmental proceedings. Departmental enquiry proceeding is not born by strict rules of Evidence Act and it is mainly by fair play and natural justice. If there is no fair play and principles of natural justice violation exists, then, the departmental enquiry proceedings can be interfered with, but not for sufficiency of evidence before the Tribunal. Evidence Act do not apply to domestic enquiry or before Administrative Tribunal. Acquittal of an employee in a criminal case will not have any effect of previously concluded domestic enquiry, especially when the domestic enquiry is challenged after several years only on the ground of acquittal. If disciplinary proceedings are conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and even an acquittal in criminal case on same set of facts could not be a ground to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings . 15. As already stated above, in the present case, by virtue of Exhibits P5 and P9, similar challenge that there cannot be simultaneous proceedings against the appellant on the same set of facts came to be questioned, but were held against the appellant. Admittedly, though the appellant was convicted by the 13 _**WA.1259/07**_ trial court, he came to be acquitted by the High Court in Criminal Appeal. Whether this judgment at Exhibit P39 would come in the way of dismissal of the appellant by virtue of disciplinary proceedings ? It is well settled that the nature of proceedings in a criminal case is entirely different from the nature of proceedings in a departmental proceedings. Standard of proof and scope of two proceedings are entirely different from each other. In a criminal case, the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in the departmental enquiry, it is based on preponderance of probabilities. Strict sophisticated rules of evidence do not apply to domestic enquiry as long as principles of natural justice is followed by giving fair opportunity of being heard to the delinquent. If there is no procedural illegality in holding the domestic enquiry, normally the Courts should resist from interfering with the departmental enquiry. Termination of departmental enquiry is not at all based on what happens in a criminal case. The imputations and the charges framed against the appellant in the departmental enquiry have to be considered on its own to arrive at a conclusion whether he is guilty of misconduct as per the C.R.L Rules as indicated above. Apparently, in the criminal case, against the appellant, in the opinion of 14 _**WA.1259/07**_ learned Judge, the prosecution was not able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It was not a case where the acquittal was on account of false prosecution or foisted prosecution against the appellant. As there was insufficiency of material before the Court in the criminal proceedings, benefit of doubt was extended to the appellant. In that view of the matter, respondents' counsel contends that it was not an honourable acquittal, but it was a case of benefit of doubt. Even otherwise, as already stated above, the departmental enquiry was allowed to be continued but no action to be taken till termination of the criminal investigation, which is strictly followed by the first respondent. Only after completion of the criminal case, a decision in the departmental enquiry was made. 16. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, the first argument that both the proceedings were on same set of facts, therefore, acquittal in Crl.A.No.474 of 2000 would come to the benefit of the appellant, has to be rejected. 17. Then coming to the argument of non supply of documents and supply of photostat copies of relevant documents without the originals, a detailed counter came to be filed by the respondent Management before learned Single Judge explaining 15 _**WA.1259/07**_ the entire circumstances at paragraphs 14 and 15 of the counter affidavit, which read as under: _“14. In answer to the allegations in paragraph 16 it is submitted that the petitioner requested for the English translation of the Malayalam documents on 18.02.2000 and the same were furnished to the petitioner on 25.2.2000, as can be seen from Ext.P31 report of the Enquiry Officer. The examination of Sri.Mohanan started only after this and Sri.Mohanan was cross examined by the petitioner one month thereafter and therefore the petitioner's complaint that the opportunity given for cross examination was reduced to an empty formality is incorrect and denied. With respect o the allegations in paragraph 17 it is submitted it is true that Exts.P17 and P18 the petitioner sought the change f the Enquiry Officer, which were rejected vide letter dated 7.9.2000. A perusal of these requests itself will show that the attempt of the petitioner was only to stall the progress of the enquiry and he had no specific grievance against the conduct of the enquiry or the Enquiry Officer. In answer to the allegation in paragraph 18 it is submitted after initially producing list of documents, the Presenting Officer decided not to rely on some of them and proceeded with the enquiry relying on the remaining documents. Moreover the petitioner had also objected to relying on these documents. This does not in any way contradict the stand of the 4[th] respondent as contained in Ext.P11._ _15. With respect to the allegations in paragraph 19 it is submitted it is true that the petitioner submitted_ 16 _**WA.1259/07**_ _Ext.P19 requesting the Enquiry Officer to requisition the documents mentioned therein and the Enquiry Officer had advised the petitioner to address the Disciplinary Authority for the same. Accordingly the petitioner submitted his representation dated 22.03.2000 to the Disciplinary Authority, a copy of which is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit.R1(a) for identification. Ext.P20 is the response given by the Disciplinary Authority. As can be seen from the same, serial Nos.3 to 6 of Ext.R1(a) were produced before the CBI Court on being summoned a request made by the petitioner and serial Nos 7,8 and 9 were handed over to the CBI for production in Court. In so far as serial Nos. 1 and 12 are concerned they were produced in the enquiry on 31.03.2000 whereas serial No.2 leave application was not submitted by the petitioner and hence could not be produced. Serial No.10 is a non-existing document and hence could not be produced. This was informed to the petitioner in the enquiry held on 31.0.3.2000. Serial No.11 is the statements recorded by CBI from their prosecution witnesses and the same was produced by CBI before the CBI Court in the case against the petitioner. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer or these respondents cannot be faulted for the non-production of the documents, which were not available.”_ 18. Reading of these paragraphs clearly indicate that the relevant documents like FIR, translation of Malayalam documents etc. were given much prior to the commencement of cross 17 _**WA.1259/07**_ examination of one Mr.Mohanan, the person, from whom the accused said to have received the amount. Therefore, question of any disability would not arise to the appellant for want of translated copies of the documents, i.e., Exhibits P17 and P18. There was also request for change of officer and some of the documents sought by the appellant were not relied upon by the Presenting Officer as stated above. The documents at serial Nos.3 to 6 of Exhibit R1(a) were produced before CBI Court only at the request made by the appellant, as those documents were summoned and handed over to CBI for production in the court. The above material indicates criminal case was proceeded with much prior to the domestic enquiry and the copy of the chargesheet was with the appellant. It is not a case where some documents were misplaced, but it is a case where relevant documents were produced before the CBI Court to the knowledge of the appellant and he also had copies of those documents produced before the Criminal Court. The decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant so far as photostat copies, i.e., _**Subarna Barik v. State**_ (AIR 1976 Orissa 236) and _**State of U.P v. Shatrughanlal**_ [(1998)6 SCC 651] have no application to the facts of the present case, as it is not a case of non supply of 18 _**WA.1259/07**_ documents, but supply of photostat copies of documents, which were already available before the CBI Court. Copies of documents, which were not relied upon, were not supplied. Hence, there is no justification in the allegation that the appellant was prejudiced. 19. In a departmental enquiry, no doubt, principles of natural justice require supply of copies of relevant documents to delinquent. But, to the knowledge of the appellant, if those documents were available before CBI Court, he cannot contend that there is violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, this argument is also not available to him. As already stated above, strict compliance of Evidence Act need not be insisted in a domestic enquiry. Concealing the original documents if enquiry was done placing reliance on photostat copies of the documents, it is one thing. Such situation never arose in the present case. 20. The next argument of the appellant is that he was not given assistance of a legal practitioner to defend him. Clause 29.2.1 of the C.R.L Rules does not envisage sanction of legal assistance as a right. Clause 29.2.1 of the C.R.L Rules reads as follows: _“29.2.1 An employee against whom an enquiry is to be held will be given a Chargehseet clearly setting forth the circumstances appearing against him and will be given an_ 19 _**WA.1259/07**_ _opportunity to explain the reasons to be recorded in writing by the person holding enquiry. The employee will be permitted to produce witnesses in his defence, and to cross-examine any witness on whose evidence the charges rest. He will be given an opportunity to answer the charges and permitted to be defended only by himself or by a fellow employee of the Company. Where the Company has appointed a person for holding an enquiry into the charge, it may, by an order, appoint any Public Servant or a Legal practitioner to be known as “Presenting Officer” to present, on Company's behalf, the case in respect of the charge alleged against the employee. The employee concerned may take the assistance of a fellow employee to present the case on his behalf, unless the “Presenting Officer” of the Company is a legal practitioner; or the Company having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits. Employees not involved in the enquiry will not normally be allowed to attend. A concise summary of the evidence on both sides and employee's plea shall be recorded.”_ 21. The Presenting Officer was not a legally equipped person, therefore, there was no occasion for providing such legal assistance. Hence, the enquiry officer was justified in declining such request. It is very clear from clause 29.2.1 extracted above, under what circumstances, assistance of a legal practitioner could be given. In the absence of circumstances warranting such situation, the appellant has no ground to contend that denial of legal assistance is also violation of principles of natural justice. From the records it is seen, several steps were taken by the 20 _**WA.1259/07**_ enquiry officer to examine some witnesses. If such effort of the enquiry officer was not fruitful, the appellant cannot blame the procedure. Nothing prevented the appellant to secure their presence, if any of the witnesses relied upon by him were to assist his defence. In the absence of such effort, all efforts made by the enquiry officer to secure presence of witnesses would show there was no denial of any right in favour of the appellant. Similarly, it is also noticed from the records, several documents, which were not within the reach of the enquiry officer, were said to be summoned. Unless the appellant is able to convince the court how these documents would assist him in substantiating his defence, we cannot opine there was violation of principles of natural justice to him. Same principle would apply to summoning witnesses. 22. In the present case, the very nature of charges would indicate that `10,000/-was demanded by the appellant from Mr.Mohanan and the same came to be accepted by him. Narration of the facts would indicate, the witnesses along with CBI officer were observing how Mr.Mohanan approached the delinquent and how he followed the directions of the delinquent. On confirming that Mr.Mohanan had brought money, the appellant went inside the 21 _**WA.1259/07**_ office asking Mr.Mohanan to wait outside. The delinquent came out of his cabin and proceeded towards the car parking area followed by Mr.Mohanan. After reaching the car, he sat behind the steering wheel and opened the left side door and received the money from left side of the car. This was noticed by witnesses who are examined before the enquiry officer. They actually saw Mr.Mohanan taking out the money from his pocket and handing over the same to the appellant. Immediately after receiving the money, the appellant left the place. Though Mr.Mohanan could give signal to the CBI officers as agreed earlier, on account of the traffic, they could not go right behind the car of the appellant. However, as there was strike in the canteen of the Kochi Refineries Limited, thinking that the appellant must have gone to his home, the raiding party went to the residence of the appellant and found the car of the appellant was parked outside the house. But the door was locked with the glasses raised up. The evidence on record indicates, they made personal search of the appellant as well as the residence and they were not able to find the money. Though on enquiry, receipt of money was denied by the appellant initially, he came out later with the statement, it was taken as a loan for the purchase of tyres for his car. Hand wash of 22 _**WA.1259/07**_ the appellant in accordance with the procedure disclosed presence of phenolphthalein powder. It was at the instance of the appellant, they went near the car and on the appellant opening the car, they found the money wrapped in a towel kept in the left front seat of the car. Identity of the notes was confirmed. This is the procedure followed by the raiding party. In the absence of any procedural lapses so far as departmental enquiry, the departmental enquiry having been conducted in accordance with the C.R.L procedure there is no violation of principles of natural justice. The disciplinary authority proceeded to consider the material on record and the entire material placed on record points out misconducts committed by the appellant based on preponderance of probabilities, which attracts the general rules indicating violation of maintaining absolute integrity, devotion to duty and doing action, which is unbecoming of an employee. Similarly, the dishonest intention of the appellant in connection with the business of the Company is also a misconduct as indicated at clause 27.3 of the C.R.L Rules. Clause 27.11 is also applicable to the facts of the present case. Clause 27.25 refers to acceptance or solicitation by employee of any money, favour or any other reward for retention in the Company's service or for any 23 _**WA.1259/07**_ other special consideration. The very acceptance of money to discharge his official duty as Manager of the Company would attract the above provisions. 23. Having regard to the nature of charges alleged and proved, we are of the opinion, the dismissal of the appellant from service is justified. Normally, the punishment imposed shall not be interfered with by the Courts, unless it is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Since the misconduct alleged in this case is of very grave nature, we are of the opinion, the dismissal order is justifiable. In view of the above reasoning, we are of the opinion, there are no circumstances warranting interference with the judgment of the learned Single Judge either on legal aspects or on factual circumstances. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. ## **MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE** ## **V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE** ## **vgs**