A SADASIVAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Probation Officer in the Department of Prisons on 16.12.1974. By a memo dated 20.03.1989, issued in DE No.133/88, the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings framed two charges against the petitioner as well as the office assistant, working in Udhagamandalam jail alleging that there was a demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

(2.) AFTER enquiry, the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings held the first charge proved against the petitioner and submitted a report to the Government. By G.O.Ms.NO.259 Home (Prison II) Department dated 21.02.1995, the Government forwarded the report to the Inspector General of Prisons for passing final orders and after furnishing a copy of the enquiry report and calling for further representation from the petitioner, the Inspector General of Prisons passed a final order dated 02.06.1995, imposing a penalty of reduction in the time scale of pay by three stages for a period of two years.

(3.) I have carefully considered the above two submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In so far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is seen that the petitioner who was employed as a Probation Officer, as well as the Office Assistant who worked under him, were chargesheeted for the misconduct of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The charge of demand as against the petitioner was held proved by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, though it was found that the tainted currency was actually received by the second accused who was the Office Assistant. The original complaint of demand of illegal gratification was actually made only as against this petitioner and not against the Office Assistant. However the money was actually received by the Office Assistant and his statement that he received the currency only under instructions from the petitioner, was accepted by the Tribunal. Under such circumstances the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the first charge was proved against the petitioner. Therefore the finding of the Tribunal is actually based upon some evidence on record and it cannot be taken to be a case of no evidence at all. The findings of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings cannot be said to be perverse, since it is based upon the complaint and oral evidence given by the complainant, and the statement made by the second accused that he received the money under the instructions of the petitioner. Therefore I am unable to accept the first challenge to the order of penalty dated 02.06.1995.