V R KELKAR Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case was working as a Muster Clerk in P.W. D. Hayeri Sub-Division, Haveri during the year 1959. After a preliminary enquiry charges were framed against the petitioner alleging that he while working as Muster Clerk marked false while working as a Muster Clerk marked false attendance as present in respect of Mazadoor Peerappa Shivappa from 21-3-1959 to 20-4-1959, even though the said Peerappa Shivappa did not attend to the work on those days, and the pay of the said Mazadoor Peerappa Shivappa was claimed, taking a receipt with the thumb impression of one Thippanna and misappropriated a sum of Rs. 4247 nP., being therefore guilty of fabricating false evidence by marking false attendance and also misappropriating Government money to the extent of Rs. 42.47 nP. The payment is alleged to have been made on 12-5-1959. In support of the charges six witnesses were examined including Mazadoor Peerappa Thippanna and the Hand-Writing Expert D.J. Doddamani. In answer to the charges framed against him the petitioner filed his written statement on 20-4-1960 stating that during the relevant period Mazadoor Peerappa was working and that his attendance had been marked correctly. He also stated "I endorsed the thumb impressions on ascertaining from the respective coolies that they had received payments accordingly as it was usual routine affair." He also asked for permission to engage a lawyer for his defence for the reason that he did not know how to express in English.

(2.) Thippanna in his evidence has stated that he was literate that he never put his payment and that on this occasion he was asked by the petitioner to put his left thumb mark. He identifies his thumb impression on the relevant entry relating to the sum of Rs. 42.47 nP. Thippanna also states that Peerappa was not working during the relevant period. This evidence is corroborated by Peerappa who states that he did not do any work during the relevant period and that he did not receive any payment D.J. Doddamani who is the Finger Print Expert, has deposed that the admitted thumb impression corresponding to the payment of Rs. 42.47 nP. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of these persons to indicate that their statements are unworthy of credence. On the basis of the evidence recorded and the statements file by the petitioner, the Enquiring Officer in a detailed and well considered order came to the conclusions that the charge against the petitioner was proved and recommended the dismissal of the petitioner from service. The Government agreed with the finding of the Enquiring Officer. The petitioner was also served with a show cause notice with the findings recorded by Government and the report of the Enquiring Officer on 15-11-1960. The representation of the petitioner dated 8-12-1960 was considered to be unsatisfactory. The opinion of the Public Service Commission was also against the petitioner. The respondent therefore passed orders on 18-6-1961 dismissing the petitioner from service.

(3.) It is this order of 18-5-1961 that is challenged in this Writ Petition. In support of this. Mr. Datar the learned counsel for the petitioner urges two grounds. One is that the conclusion of the respondent that the petitioner was guilty of the charges framed against him is unsustainable on the basis of the evidence recorded by the Enquiring Officer. It is not open to the petitioner to ask us to review the evidence recorded by the Enquiring Officer, as if we are sitting in appeal over his conclusions. It is enough to state that the findings of the Enquiring Officer as if we are sitting in appeal over his conclusions. It is enough to state that the findings of the Enquiring Officer as accepted by the State are based on evidence available in the case. We are not concerned in these proceedings with the question whether that evidence is adequate to support the conclusion.