Shaji Lukose vs The State of Kerala, The Director General of Police, The Inspector General of Police and The Deputy Inspector General of Police

S. Siri Jagan, J.—The Petitioner is a Sub Inspector of Police. While he was working in the Kunnikode Police Station, he was charge sheeted for acts of misconduct alleging that he committed grave dereliction of duty by his indisciplined action of getting drunk while on duty, by not obeying lawful orders of the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Punalur, by not appearing in proper uniform, by not complementing the ASP, tarnishing the reputation of the police in public, by absenting from the duty place and police station and failed to collect intelligence about illicit spirit dealings within the jurisdiction of his police station. An enquiry was conducted and Ext. P3 punishment roll was submitted, in which, the enquiry officer found that the Petitioner is guilty of the misconducts alleged against him. Based on the findings in Ext. P3, by Ext. P5 order, the punishment of barring of three increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed an appeal, which was rejected by Ext. P7 order. The Petitioner filed a review petition before the Government. By Ext. P11, the Government reduced the punishment to barring the increment for one year without cumulative effect. The Petitioner is challenging Exts.P3, P5, P7 and P11 orders in this writ petition.

According to the Petitioner, there was no evidence in the enquiry to prove the guilt of the Petitioner and the order of punishment is arbitrary and unsustainable. He also submits that the appellate and reviewing authorities have not applied their minds while passing Exts.P7 and P11 orders. He points out that in Ext. P11 the Government themselves found that the allegations against the Petitioner were not proved on the basis of documentary evidence, despite which, the Government has only reduced the punishment, instead of absolving the Petitioner from the charges alleged against him.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd Respondent as also the 1st Respondent supporting the impugned orders.

I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

Before proceeding to consider the arguments of the counsel for the Petitioner, I must remind myself of the legal position when this Court considers the challenge against disciplinary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In disciplinary proceedings, the evidence adduced in the enquiry cannot be appreciated as in a criminal case or in a civil case. It is settled law that sufficiency of evidence is not a matter courts can look into while appreciating disciplinary proceedings. The law is that if there is some evidence on record to prove the guilt of the delinquent, unless the findings are so demonstrably perverse that no reasonable would come to that conclusion, this Court cannot interfere with the findings in disciplinary proceedings.

Ext. P3 is the punishment roll. That contains the findings of the enquiry officer, who conducted the enquiry in the disciplinary proceedings. It runs into 19 pages. The entire depositions of witnesses have been summarised therein and the conclusions of the enquiry officer have been detailed. The counsel for the Petitioner has, in his attempt to prove that the findings are perverse, taken me through some parts of the evidence to show that there are some discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses. The allegations are of such a nature that there would not be any documentary evidence to prove the same. Such allegations can be proved only through oral evidence. Perhaps the oral evidence available may not be sufficient to convict the Petitioner in a criminal case or may not even be sufficient for finding against the Petitioner in a civil case in a civil court. But on going through the evidence in Ext. P3, I am not satisfied that the conclusion arrived at by the enquiry officer is in any way perverse. He has believed the oral evidence of the witnesses. Simply because there may be some discrepancies in the evidence that does not vitiate the findings insofar as the standard of proof is not beyond reasonable doubt or by even preponderance of probabilities, but that requried for an ordinary prudent man to come to a conclusion of guilt. I am unable to persuade myself to accept the contention of the counsel for the Petitioner that the findings in Ext. P3 are perverse in any manner. Therefore, such finding cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Against the enquiry the Petitioner has no other complaint. Insofar as I find that the conclusions of the enquiry officer are not perverse, I am of opinion that I need not go into other contentions against the appellate or review orders. In fact in the review order I find that the Government has stated that the allegations are not proved on the basis of ''recordical evidence''. The allegations are not of such a nature that there would be documentary evidence available to prove the same. The allegation could have been proved only by oral evidence. The Government has reduced the punishment to one of barring of increment for one year without cumulative effect. For the proved misconduct, I do not think that the same is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconducts alleged against the Petitioner and, therefore, I am not persuaded to interfere with the punishment also. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.