N. Latheef v. State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN** **TUESDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2011 / 4TH SRAVANA 1933** **WP(C).No. 25343 of 2005(P)** **-----------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **------------------------** **N.LATHEEF, FORESTER, PAZHAYA VEEDU,** **KULASEKHARA PATHI, PATHANAMTHITTA (UNDER COMPULSORY RETIREMENT).** **BY ADV. SRI.S.ABDUL RAZZAK** **RESPONDENT(S):** **----------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST (ADMINISTRATION), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3. THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST (SOUTHERN CIRCLE), KOLLAM.** **R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **WPC.NO.25343/2005 P** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **P1: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DTD. 11/07/2001 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.** - **P2: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS DTD. 11/07/2001 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.** - **P3: COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE PETITIONER TO THE MEMO OF CHARGES.** - **P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE OF ENQUIRY DTD. 4/12/2001 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER.** - **P4: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS SERVED ON THE PETITIONER.** - **P5: COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD.05/06/2003 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY R3.** - **P6: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF R3 DTD. 11/08/2003 (ORDER NO.QC4 1410/2001 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.** - **P7: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2 - 26064/2003 DTD. 07/07/2004 ISSUED BY R2.** - **P8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O.(RT) 241/05/F&WLD DTD. 16/04/2005 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF KERALA.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** - **R2(A): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 13/10/2003 OF THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, GOODRICAL.** - **R2(B): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 06/08/2004 OF THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, GOODRICAL.** - **R2(C): COPY OF LETTER NO.E1 - 6167/03 DTD. 31/10/03 OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, RANNI DIVISION.** **R2(D): COPY OF LETTER NO.E1 - 6167/03 DTD. 09/02/05.** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Kss** **==> picture [108 x 14] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [278 x 55] intentionally omitted <==** ## J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a Forester in the Department of Forest and Wild Life of the Government of Kerala. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing Ext. P1 memo of charges alleging that representing himself to be a member of the Kollam Flying Squad, the petitioner in the official uniform threatened a mill owner with action for illegal trade of forest timber, demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 500/-. The petitioner filed Ext. P2 reply to the memo of charges taking the defence of complete denial including denial that he ever went to the mill at all on the date of occurrence of the incident. An enquiry was conducted in which the mill owner gave evidence to the effect that the petitioner demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 500/- threatening him with action for illegal trade in timer if he does not pay the same. A U.D Clerk of the Forest Department also gave evidence to the effect that on the day of the incident, he saw the petitioner at the mill. Although the petitioner has not produced the enquiry report, from the show cause notice issued to him, it is seen that the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of misconduct alleged against him and Ext. P5 show cause notice was issued to him directing him to show cause why the enquiry report should not be accepted and the punishment of compulsory retirement from service should not be imposed on the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, Ext. P6 order has been passed by the 1st respondent imposing on the petitioner the punishment **W.P(C) No. 25343 of 2005** -: 2 :- of compulsory retirement. The petitioner's appeal to the appellate authority was rejected under Ext. P7 order. The petitioner's revision before the Government was also rejected by Ext. P8 order. The petitioner is challenging Exts. P6, P7 and P8 seeking the following reliefs: - “i) Call for the records leading upto Ext. P1, P5,P6, P7 and P8 by the issuance of a writ of certiorari and quash the same; - ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant all service benefits to the petitioner denied due to the imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent supporting the impugned action. 3. The petitioner has no case that the enquiry is vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice, although a vague averment is raised to the effect that copy of the complaint on which the proceedings were initiated was not supplied to the petitioner. But in the memo of charges itself it is specifically stated that he can peruse the relevant records mentioned in the statement of allegations and take down extracts from them. Further in Ext.P2 reply to the memo of charges filed y the petitioner specifically **W.P(C) No. 25343 of 2005** -: 3 :- refers to the contents of the complaint and that “the complaint never says why he made negotiations with them and gave Rs.500/- in his innocence.” That shows that he was actually aware of the specific contents of the complaint. Therefore, there is no merit in that complaint. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that this is a case of no evidence. According to him, the evidence tendered by the mill owner on whose complaint the action was initiated is not at all convincing or trustworthy and it is contradictory as well. He points out that the U.D. Clerk, who was stated to have been present in the mill on the fateful day, has categorically denied having seen the petitioner accepting bribe. He would therefore contend that this is a case of no evidence and therefore this court should interfere with the impugned orders. He relies on various decisions of this court and the Supreme Court on the subject, which are, Union of India and another v. Jai Bhagwan Sharma, 2000 (1) ILR 639, Dr. L.P. Agarwal v. Union of India and others, (1992) 3 SCC 526, Sher Bahadur v. Union of India and others, (2002) 7 SCC 142, Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and others, (2006) 4 SCC 713, Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2 SCC 570, Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 10 SCC 539, Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of **W.P(C) No. 25343 of 2005** -: 4 :- - - Jharkhand and others, (2010) 10 SCC 693, Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India Limited and others v. Ananta Saha and others, (2011) 5 SCC 142 and State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, 2011 (1) KL SN 76. 5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 6. The charge reads as follows: “1. That you Shri. M. Latheef, while holding charge of Forester, North Kumaramperoor Forest Station of Konni Range had appeared in uniform, acted as Member of Kollam Flying Squad threatened of illegal trade of forest timber, demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.500/- from Shri. M. Ramachandran, Proprietor of S.D. Wood Industries at Veliyam (In Kottarakkara taluk) on 13.01.2001. Your action of misuse of delegated powers, impersonation, demand and acceptance of bribe tantamount to serious misconduct and irreparable damage to the goodwill of other staff and state and cheating of public. 2. Your are required to show cause as to why disciplinary action as contemplated under Kerala Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 should not be taken against you. You are allowed 15 days time from the date of receipt of the communication to submit your written statement of defence. If your written statement is not received within the specified time, the matter will be proceeded with on the presumption that you have no explanation to offer. You are also required to state whether you desire to be heard in **W.P(C) No. 25343 of 2005** -: 5 :- person. You can pursue the relevant records mentioned in the statement of allegations and take down extracts from them, if so desired, in the presence of Senior Administrative Assistant/Senior Superintendent of this office on any working day prior to the due date for submission of your written statement of defence, which will be fixed in advance at your request.” Mr. Ramachandran, the Mill owner, was the complainant. He complained that the petitioner appearing in uniform holding himself out to be a member of the Kollam Flying Squad, threatened him with action of illegal trade of forest demanded and accepted Rs. 500/-. As a witness, he repeated the same. He categorically stated that the petitioner demanded and accepted Rs. 500/- as bribe for not proceeding against the mill owner for alleged illegal trade in forest timber. Although the petitioner cross examined him elaborately, nothing could be brought out to discredit his evidence. Mr. P. Mohanan, a U.D. Clerk of Forest Range Office, Anchal, who was present in the mill for buying timber from the mill owner, stated in his evidence that on the fateful day, he saw the petitioner at the mill. Of course, he said that he did not see the petitioner accepting bribe and that he does not know as to whether any bribe has been paid to the petitioner. But, it must be noted that the **W.P(C) No. 25343 of 2005** -: 6 :- petitioner's defence in Ext. P2 reply to the memo of charges was of total denial. He even went to the extent of saying that he did not a go to Mr. Ramachandran's mill at all on the fateful day, which is disproved by the evidence of Sri. Mohanan, who was also a Clerk of the Forest Department. The petitioner has not been able to make out a case that Mr. Ramachandran and Mr. Mohanan had any ill will towards the petitioner. The evidence of Mr. Ramachandran and that of Sri. Mohanan together sufficiently proves the charge against the petitioner. 7. In view of the finding that the charges have been sufficiently proved, I need not go into the various decisions cited by the counsel for the petitioner to the effect that in a case of no evidence, this court can interfere with the findings in a disciplinary proceeding and punishment imposed thereon. Some of the decisions cited by the petitioner are to the effect that when the basis of the allegations falls down, the entire action should be struck down. I do not find any material to show that the basis of the action itself is unsustainable. 8. I am satisfied that the oral evidence on record, copies of which the petitioner has produced as Ext. P4 is sufficient to prove the guilt of the petitioner. It must be noted that in domestic enquiries, this court has to look into ## **W.P(C) No. 25343 of 2005** -: 7 :- the evidence not as a criminal case or in a civil case. What is relevant is whether an independent reasonable person would, on the same materials, come to the conclusion of guilt. I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the evidence available sufficiently proves that the petitioner is guilty of the misconduct alleged against him. In fact, I am of opinion that the respondents were very lenient to the petitioner in the matter of awarding punishment. As everybody knows, corruption is the cancer eating into the fabric of our society. Unless the same is dealt with very strictly at every point, we will not be able to control this menace. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit whatsoever in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/