RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while working as Head Clerk in the District Court, Ernakulam, was promoted and posted as Sheristadar, Special Court (SPE/CBI) I, Ernakulam. By letter dt. 16.12.1986 the District Judge, Ernakulam reported to the High Court some irregularities found on the part of the petitioner in connection with the valuable thondy articles in various civil and sessions cases kept in his custody as the Head Clerk of the District Court before his promotion. Sri. V.E. Varghese, the new Head Clerk posted in the petitioner's vacancy reported for duty on 10.12.1986 and the charge of office was handed over to him by the petitioner. Even so, he did not hand over charge of the valuable thondy articles in his custody to the new Head Clerk. When this was reported to the District Judge, he directed the petitioner to appear before him on 12.12.1986 and hand over charge of the valuable thondy articles to the new Head Clerk. On 11.12.1986, the petitioner submitted a report before the District Judge stating that the valuables were still in his custody, but, on verification of the same, variations were noticed and requested for 10 days time to find out the missing items. On 12.12.1986, the petitioner appeared before the District Judge as directed earlier and handed over in his presence, some of the valuables to the Head Clerk. But the petitioner failed to hand over many other valuable items, mainly gold ornaments kept in his custody. The District Judge asked for the explanation of the petitioner in the matter. In his explanation dt. 6.1.1987, it was submitted that he had not misappropriated the valuables found missing and he was completely innocent in the matter. He also expressed his willingness to replace the items missing owning legal and moral responsibility as the custodian of the missing articles. The District Judge forwarded the explanation of the petitioner to the High Court. The High Court as per O.M. No. D2/56547/86 dt 27.1.87 accepted the unconditional offer made by the petitioner to replace the missing articles. Pursuant to the aforesaid O.M. dt. 27.1.87 the District Judge issued Ext P1 memo to the petitioner directing him to replace all the valuable items of property missing from the petitioner's custody while he was working as Head Clerk on or before 6.2.1987 positively. In compliance with the direction contained in Ext. P1 the petitioner replaced the missing articles as evidenced by Ext. P2 receipt dt. 17.2.1987 issued by the District Judge. On production of the missing articles, the District Judge got the same verified and tested with the help of a licensed goldsmith and they were found to be of the same description and specification of the original items found missing from the custody of the petitioner and this matter was reported by the District Judge to the High Court as per Ext P3 letter dt. 23.2.87. On receipt of Ext P3 letter, the High Court took the view that the old ornaments replaced by the petitioner might have been the original ornaments kept as thondy materials so that the petitioner might have produced the very same old ornaments which he has deliberately misplaced. In that view, Ext. P4 charge memo was issued to the petitioner with an accompanying statement of allegations by the Registrar of the High Court and at the same time keeping him under suspension on 8.5.1987. The charges framed against the petitioner by the High Court were as follows:

(2.) The main thrust of the petitioner's contention before this court was that he having been exonerated of the main charges by the enquiry officer as per Ext. P7 enquiry report, the second respondent has committed an obvious mistake in differing from the views expressed by the enquiry officer while entering an independent finding of guilt unsupported by any cogent reasons or valid materials. I find considerable force in this submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. To recapitulate, the charges framed against the petitioner are:

(3.) The various points examined by the enquiry authority and its conclusions thereon are the following: 1. Whether the petitioner was the custodian of the various items mentioned in the memo of charges Since the petitioner's predecessor had handed over the valuables to the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner was the custodian of the valuables.