IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 14813 of 1997(L)
1. P.N.RAVINDRANATHAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. FCI,MADRAS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.R.RAVI
For Respondent :SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :23/05/2007
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
O.P.No.14813 OF 1997
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2007
JUDGMENT
The writ petitioner, then a First Grade Assistant in the
service of the first respondent Food Corporation of India, had to
perform his duties, which included the briefing of the Standing
Counsel for the FCI before this Court. As part of his duties and
responsibilities, he, according to him, attended the office of the
Standing Counsel of the FCI at Ernakulam on the 12th, 13th, 14th,
19th and 20th of March, 1994. On such basis, he placed his
Travelling Allowance and Dearness Allowance bills. He also
drew the allowances.
2. The employer first respondent, through its supervisory
officers, came to a tentative view that the claim for TA and other
amounts was not transparent. They termed it as a case of
cheating the employer. This resulted in disciplinary
proceedings. The competent authority ordered a domestic
inquiry. The disciplinary proceedings culminated in the
OP.14813/97
Page numbers
imposition of penalty of barring of three increments. Challenge
to that within the realm of administrative hierarchy failed.
Hence this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, after having taken
me through different aspects of the case on facts, merits and
evidence, ultimately urged that Ext.P4 certificate issued by the
Standing Counsel regarding the attendance of the petitioner in
the office of the Standing Counsel ought not to have been
brushed aside but ought to have been relied on as a credible
material. He further urged that if it were the intention of the
petitioner to cheat and make unlawful gain, the modus operandi
would have been different. He also argued that the information
allegedly obtained by the employer FCI from the Southern
Railways was not proved in the inquiry and the generation of
that communication is shadowed. This is said by pointing out
that the communication by the Southern Railways to the FCI
does not appear to be an official one, but was apparently a
confidential one in the name cover of a superior officer in the
OP.14813/97
Page numbers
FCI viz. Sri.Narayanan Moosath. It is also pointed out that the
disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry
officer as far as the second charge is concerned.
4. Considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the writ
petitioner vis-a-vis the submissions on behalf of the FCI by the
Standing Counsel, it has to be first noticed that no case of
personal bias, malice or malafides is alleged as against the
enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority as such.
5. Along with memo of charges was an appendix, which
enlisted seven documents. The case against the petitioner, in a
nutshell, is that the Railway tickets which he held out as used by
him for travel from Palakkad to Ernakulam on 12th and 19th were
tickets which were issued by the Railways only on 13th and 20th of
March, 1994 respectively. The next aspect of the case is that
though he presented only tickets for travel by First Class, he
claimed TA by Second Class A/c tickets which are costlier than
First Class tickets. Though such claim and drawal of TA and
OP.14813/97
Page numbers
other allowances for the Second Class A/c tickets were made, the
materials did not include any evidence of the alleged conversion
of the First Class tickets to Second Class A/c tickets as claimed
by the petitioner.
6. The petitioner was put to notice of the materials being
considered in the inquiry. He was admittedly given an
opportunity to place his defence and meet the accusation. He
also examined two defence witnesses to prove his case that he
had reached Ernakulam on the 12th and 19th respectively. He
also pressed into service a certificate, which is produced before
this Court as Ext.P4, issued by the then Standing Counsel of FCI
certifying that the petitioner had attended the office of the
Standing Counsel on the 12th, 13th and 14th of March, 1994.
7. However, glaring at him were the communications given
by the competent officers of the Southern Railways, which
categorically show that the ticket numbers relied on by the
petitioner to claim TA were actually issued only on the 13th and
OP.14813/97
Page numbers
20th of March, 1994 respectively and not on the 12th and 19th of
March, 1994 as claimed by him.
8. Confining the contentions to be in the realm of appreciation
of evidence and reminding myself of the parameters of judicial
review in such matters, I may notice that even if Ext.P4
certificate issued by the Standing Counsel regarding the
attendance of the petitioner in the office of the Standing Counsel
was given the entire credit, the impugned decision cannot be
treated as perverse. While I would assume that the certificate
Ext.P4 is beyond challenge, all that the said certificate evidences
is that the petitioner had attended the office of the Standing
Counsel on the 12th and 14th also, apart from the other days. It
need not necessarily mean that he did not travel from Palakkad
to Ernakulam on the 13th and 20th. May be it is a case where a
person can go back from Ernakulam to Palakkad and return on
the next day having regard to the availability of train service and
the distance to be covered. Under such circumstances, even if
Ext.P4 certificate is to be considered as I would, that does not
OP.14813/97
Page numbers
necessarily turn round the findings of the enquiry officer and the
disciplinary authority to treat those decisions as palpably
perverse and so unreasonable that it would not have been
arrived at by any reasonably advised prudent person.
9. Now, reverting to the credibility of the communication of
the Southern Railways to the FCI regarding the date of issuance
of the tickets, while it is the contention of the petitioner that
there was no oral evidence in support of the documents, the said
documents were notified to the petitioner before inquiry. It does
not appear from the materials on record that the petitioner
sought for examination of any witnesses to discredit the
communication by the Southern Railways to the FCI. No
personal interest or prejudice is pleaded or proved either during
inquiry or in this writ proceedings as against the officials of the
Southern Railways, touching the matter.
10. I may also notice and remind myself in this context, the
principles relating to presumptions that would emanate out of
OP.14813/97
Page numbers
commonsense, which essentially is the basis for an adjudicator
to understand the common course of human conduct. This
essentially is the jurisprudential background and legislative
wisdom in the crafting of section 114 of the Evidence Act, which
would apply to judicial proceedings. The principles therein are
founded on common sense and would aid in domestic enquiry
and other proceedings, which may not be judical proceedings
and also in quazi-judicial proceedings, even if the Evidence Act,
as such, may not apply to such proceedings.
11. The Southern Railways, while it issues a communication
regarding the contents or date of issuance of a ticket, has
obviously to depend upon its official records and actions
reflected by the records, the regularity and propriety of which is
also a matter of presumption and is to be presumed except in
exceptional situations. Such a presumption is attached to the
communication given by the Southern Railways to the FCI.
While such a presumption, which again is a matter of
commonsense, is a permissible one, it may be open to one who
OP.14813/97
Page numbers
challenges it, to dislodge that presumption using any of the
modes as are known, on the facts and circumstances of the
case. But, no attempt was made by the petitioner in the enquiry
proceedings to dislodge the presumption during the course of
the inquiry. Therefore, the communication by the Railways to
the FCI is a material which sufficiently supports the finding
arrived at by the enquiry officer.
12. Having regard to what is aforesaid, while giving complete
credit to Ext.P4 certificate, the contentions of the writ petitioner
as against the findings under charge No.1 are only to be
rejected. I do so. I find no unreasonableness or perversity in
the findings entered by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary
authority as regards charge No.1.
13. The findings under charge No.2 are essentially
complimentary or dependent upon the allegations and findings
under charge No.1 relating to the presentation of the journey
tickets as if they were tickets regarding journey on the 12th and
OP.14813/97
Page numbers
19th of March, 1994. Therefore, the disciplinary authority cannot
be found fault with for having disagreed with the enquiry officer
on that count.
14. I also do not find any procedural illegality or irregularity in
the matter of the disciplinary proceedings.
In the result, the writ petition fails. The same is
accordingly dismissed. No costs.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Judge
kkb.
OP.14813/97
Page numbers
=======================
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J
O.P.NO.14813 OF 1997
JUDGMENT
23rd MAY, 2007.
=======================