S MOHAN Vs. GOVT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the order of the second respondent dated August 27, 1989 by which the petitioner has been removed from the services of the second respondent Board. The petitioner and one Kesavan were working as Assistants in the Besant Nagar Division of the second respondent Tamil Nadu Housing Board, on October 14, 1985 both were arrested for having demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 150 from one Sriramkrishnan, for giving information regarding Flat No. 102/20 and the petitioner herein was kept under suspension pending inquiry, by an order of suspension dated October 18, 1985. A charge was framed against the petitioner under Service Regulation 37 (b) of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Service Regulations, 1969, stating that the petitioner has demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 150 from one Sriramkrishnan for furnishing the details of the amount outstanding towards the Flat No. M. 102/20, Besant Nagar. An enquiry was conducted in which witnesses were examined and the matter was placed before the respondent- Board and the respondent-Board by the resolution dated December 30, 1988 resolved to remove the petitioner from the service of the Board and the said resolution was sent to the Government for approval. The Government by letter dated July 31, 1989 accepted the proposal of Tamil Nadu Housing Board and as such the second respondent-Board issued proceedings dated August 27, 1989, which is impugned herein, by which the services of the petitioner has been terminated. The petitioner has come up before this Court challenging the said order of removal.

(2.) THE petitioner alleges in the affidavit that the second respondent erred in thinking that the charge of demand and accepting the payment had been proved while it was the specific finding of the enquiry officer that the acceptance part of it is not proved beyond doubt. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the disciplinary authority, while accepting the report of the enquiry officer, misread the report and imposed the punishment thinking that the charge of receiving bribe was also proved. It is also alleged in the affidavit that many of the witnesses were shown their alleged statements recorded under Section 161, Cri. P. C. , and those statements were treated as substantive evidence, and that the disciplinary authority has failed to note that the police officers who are originally said to have laid a trap had, after detailed investigation, dropped the case and did not file a charge sheet and that it shows that the petitioner was not guilty of any misconduct. It is also alleged that the disciplinary authority and the enquiry authority ought to have seen that the said Sriramkrishnan was the only witness speaking about the alleged demand and the acceptance of bribe by the petitioner, that the enquiry officer having rightly disbelieved the said witness by holding that the acceptance of bribe by the petitioner had not been proved, ought to have disbelieved him on the aspect of demand also. It is also stated in the affidavit that nobody else was examined to prove the demand aspect, except the said Sriramkrishnan, that the charge of acceptance was not at all proved and as such the disciplinary authority ought to have seen that it is not safe to believe the evidence of the said Sriramkrishnan on the aspect of alleged demand which alone, according to enquiry officer, had been proved. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the finding of the enquiry officer is perverse as some portion of the findings is based on 'no evidence' and some portions are contrary to evidence and that no reasonable person would come to a conclusion as arrived at by the enquiry officer. It is also stated in the affidavit that the report of the enquiry officer and the impugned orders are non-speaking ones and as such they have to be quashed.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent. It is claimed in the counter affidavit that the enquiry officer has stated in the report that though the charge that the petitioner had demanded the bribe stands proved, the acceptance part was not proved beyond doubt. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the result of the Phenopthelin test which was conducted on his left hand confirms turning pink and that it shows that the petitioner would have accepted the money even though the money was recovered from the complainant during the incident. It is also claimed in the counter affidavit that two witnesses have justified the fact that the petitioner thrust the money back to the said Sriramkrishnan, the complainant, and that the petitioner could have done it fearing the imminent arrest by the vigilance and anti-corruption people. It is also claimed in the counter-affidavit that since the Government have directed the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to take departmental proceedings, no police action has taken place against the petitioner, that the competent persons to speak about the bribe will be the persons who demanded to pay the amount and as such there is no other evidence available to speak about the demand made by the petitioner. It is also claimed in the counter-affidavit that it is quite enough to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner had demanded and accepted the money and thrust the money back in the hands of the complainant on seeing the vigilance and anti-corruption officers approached him.