K.S.Raju vs The State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 9110 Ker

Kerala High Court

K.S.Raju vs The State Of Kerala on 24 September, 2025

​W.A.No​​.859 of 2016​           ​1​           2025:KER:70992​
                                               ​



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM​
             ​

                              PRESENT​
                              ​

  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI​
  ​

                                 &​
                                 ​

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.​
            ​

                 TH​
                 ​
WEDNESDAY, THE 24​
​                    DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 2ND ASWINA,​​
                     ​                                   1947​

                         WA NO. 859 OF 2016​
                         ​

         AGAINST​ ​
         ​        THE​ ​
                       JUDGMENT​ ​
                                 DATED​ ​
                                        10.03.2015​ ​
                                                    IN​ ​
                                                        WPC​

NO.21317 OF 2009 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA​
​

APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN W.P(C):​
​

                ​.S.RAJU,​
                K
                AGED 64 YEARS​
                ​
                S/O. K. SUDHAKARAN, SOUPARNIKA, AKGNRA 1​
                ​
                (OLD NO.20), AVANAVANCHERY P.O., ATTINGAL,​
                ​
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. (FORMERLY DISTRICT​
                ​
                JUDGE, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,​
                ​
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)​
                ​

                SRI.INNOCENT FRANCIS PAPALI​
                ​


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN W.P(C):​

​

1​ ​ ​HE STATE OF KERALA,​ T REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,​ ​ SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.​ ​

2​ ​ ​HE REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY),​ T HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.​ ​

3​ ​ THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,​ ​ ​W.A.No​​.859 of 2016​ ​2​ 2025:KER:70992​ ​

​OME (C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,​ H THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.​ ​

4​ ​ ​HE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,​ T HOME (C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,​ ​ THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.​ ​

​Y ADV SHRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL​ B SRI.K.P.HARISH, SR. GP​ ​

THIS​ ​ ​ WRIT​ ​ APPEAL​​ HAVING​​ BEEN​​ FINALLY​​ HEARD​​ ON​​ 25.06.2025,​ THE COURT ON 24.09.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:​ ​ ​W.A.No​​.859 of 2016​ ​3​ 2025:KER:70992​ ​

​JUDGMENT​

​Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.​

​The​ ​present​ ​intra-court​ ​appeal​ ​filed​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​5​ ​of​ ​the​

​Kerala​ ​High​ ​Court​ ​Act,​ ​1958,​ ​assails​ ​the​ ​judgment​ ​dated​ ​10.03.2015​

​passed​ ​in​ ​W.P(C)No.21317​ ​of​ ​2009,​ ​whereby​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Single​ ​Judge​

​has dismissed the writ petition.​

​2.​​The​​brief​​facts​​of​​the​​case​​are​​that​​the​​appellant​​was​​working​

​as​ ​District​ ​Judge.​ ​He​ ​was​ ​dismissed​ ​from​ ​service​ ​vide​ ​order​ ​dated​

​26.05.2007​ ​(Ext.P23).​ ​The​ ​appellant​ ​had​ ​also​ ​challenged​ ​Ext.P2​ ​dated​

​10.10.2001​​in​​the​​writ​​petition,​​whereby​​he​​was​​suspended​​by​​the​​High​

​Court​ ​of​ ​Kerala​ ​and​ ​also​ ​challenged​ ​the​ ​consequential​ ​disciplinary​

​proceedings​​initiated​​against​​him​​as​​well​​as​​Ext.P23​​order​​by​​which​​he​

​was dismissed from service.​ ​W.A.No​​.859 of 2016​ ​4​ 2025:KER:70992​ ​

​3.​ ​The​ ​appellant​ ​had​ ​entered​ ​into​ ​subordinate​ ​judiciary​ ​of​ ​the​

​State​​as​​a​​Munsiff​​in​​the​​year​​1983,​​pursuant​​to​​selection​​made​​by​​the​

​Kerala​ ​Public​ ​Service​ ​Commission​ ​in​​a​​special​​recruitment​​conducted​

​for​ ​Scheduled​ ​Castes​ ​and​ ​Scheduled​ ​Tribe​ ​candidates.​ ​Thereafter​ ​the​

​appellant​ ​was​ ​promoted​ ​as​ ​Sub​ ​Judge​ ​in​ ​the​ ​year​ ​1989​ ​and​

​subsequently​​promoted​​as​​District​​Judge​​in​​the​​year​​1998.​​Satisfactory​

​completion​​of​​his​​probation​​in​​the​​cadre​​of​​District​​Judge​​was​​declared​

​in​ ​the​ ​year​ ​2000.​ ​While​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​was​ ​working​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Motor​

​Accidents​ ​Claims​ ​Tribunal,​ ​Thiruvananthapuram,​ ​he​ ​was​ ​suspended​

​from​ ​service​ ​with​ ​effect​ ​from​ ​10.10.2001.​ ​Being​ ​aggrieved,​ ​the​

​appellant​ ​had​ ​challenged​ ​the​ ​suspension​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​10.10.2001​

​(Ext.P2)​ ​in​ ​O.P.No​​.30922​ ​of​ ​2001​ ​which​ ​was​ ​dismissed​ ​in​ ​limine​ ​vide​

​judgment dated 16.10.2001 (Ext.P3).​ ​W.A.No​​.859 of 2016​ ​5​ 2025:KER:70992​ ​

​4.​ ​The​ ​order​ ​of​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Single​ ​Judge​ ​was​ ​confirmed​ ​by​ ​a​

​Division​ ​Bench​ ​in​​a​​Writ​​Appeal​​No.3874​​of​​2001​​vide​​judgment​​dated​

​03.12.2001​ ​(Ext.P4).​ ​Thereafter​ ​a​ ​preliminary​ ​inquiry​ ​was​ ​conducted​

​against​​the​​appellant​​through​​the​​Registrar​​(Vigilance),​​High​​Court​​of​

​Kerala.​ ​Based​ ​on​ ​the​​preliminary​​enquiry​​report,​​a​​show​​cause​​notice​

​was​ ​issued​ ​to​ ​the​ ​appellant,​ ​intimating​ ​proposal​ ​for​ ​initiating​

​disciplinary​ ​action​ ​under​ ​Rule​ ​15​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Kerala​ ​Civil​ ​Services​

​(Classification,​ ​Control​ ​&​ ​Appeal)​ ​Rules,​ ​1960​​(hereinafter​​referred​​to​

​as​ ​'CCA​ ​Rules'​ ​for​ ​short)​ ​and​ ​called​ ​for​ ​his​ ​explanations,​ ​if​ ​any.​ ​The​

​appellant​ ​thereafter​ ​submitted​ ​a​ ​detailed​ ​reply​ ​to​ ​Ext.P5​​notice,​​vide​

​Ext.P6​ ​dated​ ​01.12.2001.​ ​The​ ​appellant​ ​filed​ ​an​ ​appeal​ ​against​ ​the​

​order​ ​of​ ​suspension​ ​under​ ​Rule​ ​22​​of​​the​​CCA​​Rules.​​Additionally​​one​

​application​ ​for​ ​revocation​ ​of​ ​suspension​ ​was​​also​​filed.​​The​​appeal​​as​

​well​ ​as​ ​the​ ​request​ ​for​ ​revocation​ ​of​ ​suspension​ ​was​ ​declined​ ​vide​ ​W.A.No​​.859 of 2016​ ​6​ 2025:KER:70992​ ​

​Ext.P9​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​02.08.2002.​ ​Ex.P10​ ​Memo​ ​of​ ​Charges​ ​dated​

​18.02.2002​ ​was​ ​issued​ ​to​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​containing​ ​statement​ ​of​

​allegations.​ ​The​ ​appellant​ ​filed​ ​a​ ​written​ ​statement​ ​of​ ​defence​ ​vide​

​Ext.P11.​ ​During​ ​the​ ​pendency​​of​​the​​said​​proceedings​​another​​'Memo​

​of​ ​Charge'​ ​enclosing​ ​detailed​ ​'statement​ ​of​ ​allegations'​ ​was​ ​issued​

​against​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​as​​per​​Ext.P12.​​The​​appellant​​again​​submitted​​a​

​detailed​ ​written​ ​statement​ ​of​ ​defence​ ​as​ ​per​ ​Ext.P13.​ ​Thereafter​ ​a​

​detailed​ ​enquiry​​was​​conducted​​by​​the​​District​​Judge​​as​​the​​Presiding​

​Officer.​​On​​completion​​of​​the​​enquiry,​​a​​detailed​​enquiry​​report​​dated​

​16.03.2006​ ​(Ext.P20)​ ​was​ ​submitted​ ​to​​the​​High​​Court,​​recommending​

​dismissal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​from​ ​the​ ​service,​ ​considering​ ​the​ ​grave​

​nature​ ​of​ ​the​ ​charges​ ​proved​ ​against​ ​him.​ ​Based​ ​on​ ​the​ ​enquiry​

​report,​​the​​High​​Court​​had​​issued​​a​​show​​cause​​notice​​dated​​25.03.2006​

​(Ext.P21)​​proposing​​punishment​​of​​dismissal​​from​​service​​to​​which​​the​ ​W.A.No​​.859 of 2016​ ​7​ 2025:KER:70992​ ​

​appellant​ ​filed​ ​a​ ​detailed​ ​representation​ ​vide​ ​Ext.P22.​ ​Thereafter​​the​

​High​​Court​​recommended​​his​​dismissal​​to​​the​​State​​Government​​based​

​on​ ​which​ ​Ext.P23​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​26.05.2007​ ​which​ ​is​ ​impugned​ ​in​ ​the​

​writ​ ​petition​ ​was​ ​issued​ ​awarding​ ​penalty​ ​of​ ​dismissal​ ​from​ ​service​

​with​​effect​​from​​the​​date​​of​​his​​suspension,​​i.e.,​​from​​10.10.2001,​​as​​per​

​Rule 11 (i) & (viii) of the CCA Rules.​

​5.​ ​Being​ ​aggrieved​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​approached​ ​the​ ​State​

​Government​ ​in​ ​Review​ ​Petition​ ​which​ ​was​ ​filed​​by​​him​​on​​17.07.2007​

​(Ext.P24).​ ​The​ ​Government​ ​failed​ ​to​ ​consider​ ​the​ ​Review​ ​Petition​

​despite​​sending​​two​​reminders​​dated​​18.01.2008​​and​​26.03.2008.​​Being​

​aggrieved,​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​had​ ​approached​ ​this​ ​Court.​​On​​24.08.2009​​in​

​I.A.No​​.9641​ ​of​ ​2009​ ​this​ ​Court​ ​directed​ ​the​ ​competent​ ​Authority​ ​to​

​pass​ ​the​ ​final​ ​orders​ ​on​ ​the​ ​Review​ ​Petition​ ​within​ ​a​ ​time​ ​limit​

​stipulated​​therein.​​Pursuant​​to​​the​​said​​order,​​the​​Review​​Petition​​was​ ​W.A.No​​.859 of 2016​ ​8​ 2025:KER:70992​ ​

​considered​​by​​the​​Government​​and​​the​​same​​was​​rejected​​vide​​Ext.P30​

​dated​​25.11.2009.​​The​​appellant​​challenged​​the​​said​​order,​​by​​virtue​​of​

​amendment brought in the writ petition.​

​6.​ ​The​ ​suspension​​of​​the​​appellant​​was​​based​​on​​the​​allegations​

​of​ ​corruption,​​official​​misconduct​​and​​objectionable​​behaviour.​​In​​the​

​preliminary​ ​enquiry​ ​report​ ​it​ ​was​ ​found​ ​that​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​had​

​received​ ​huge​​amounts​​as​​bribe​​for​​passing​​awards​​for​​accident​​claim​

​cases​ ​and​ ​that​ ​one​​Sri.Radhakrishnan​​and​​the​​Driver​​of​​the​​appellant​

​were​ ​working​ ​as​ ​agents​ ​for​ ​collecting​ ​money​ ​and​ ​that​ ​the​ ​award​

​amounts​ ​were​ ​depending​ ​upon​ ​the​ ​amount​ ​of​ ​bribe​ ​paid​ ​to​ ​the​

​appellant.​​Similar​​complaints​​were​​also​​received​​against​​the​​appellant.​

​Certain​ ​instances​ ​have​ ​been​ ​cited​​in​​the​​Memo​​of​​Chargesheet​​where​

​the​ ​appellant​ ​demanded​ ​bribes​ ​and​ ​did​ ​not​ ​pass​ ​awards​ ​unless​ ​and​ ​W.A.No​​.859 of 2016​ ​9​ 2025:KER:70992​ ​

​until​ ​he​ ​received​ ​the​ ​bribe.​ ​The​ ​appellant​ ​has​ ​filed​ ​the​ ​present​ ​writ​

​appeal against the dismissal of the writ petition.​

​7.​​The​​contention​​of​​the​​learned​​counsel​​for​​the​​appellant​​is​​that​

​the​ ​learned​ ​Single​ ​Judge​ ​erred​ ​in​ ​dismissing​ ​the​ ​writ​ ​petition​

​inasmuch​​as​​the​​conclusions​​arrived​​by​​the​​Enquiry​​Officer​​is​​perverse​

​and​ ​without​​any​​basis.​​No​​material​​evidence​​was​​collected​​during​​the​

​enquiry​ ​in​ ​order​ ​to​ ​arrive​ ​at​ ​a​ ​conclusion​ ​that​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​had​

​demanded​​and​​received​​money​​from​​the​​clients​​for​​passing​​the​​awards​

​in​​the​​claim​​cases.​​The​​learned​​counsel​​contended​​that​​the​​copy​​of​​the​

​complaint​ ​was​ ​not​ ​supplied​​to​​the​​appellant​​along​​with​​the​​Memo​​of​

​Charges.​​The​​learned​​counsel​​for​​the​​appellant​​relied​​on​​the​​judgment​

​of​ ​the​ ​High​ ​Court​ ​of​ ​Calcutta​ ​in​ ​the​ ​case​ ​of​ ​Nirmala​ ​Chakraborty​ ​v.​

​Commissioners​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Port​ ​of​ ​Calcutta​ ​and​ ​Others.​

​[MANU/WB/0389/1966]​ ​to​ ​contend​ ​that​ ​the​ ​documents​ ​on​ ​the​ ​W.A.No​​.859 of 2016​ ​10​ 2025:KER:70992​ ​

​strength​ ​of​ ​which​ ​the​ ​preliminary​ ​enquiry​ ​was​ ​started​ ​against​ ​him​

​must​​be​​supplied​​to​​the​​delinquent​​so​​that​​he​​may​​effectively​​exercise​

​his​ ​right​ ​to​ ​cross-examine​ ​the​ ​complainant,​ ​to​ ​make​​out​​his​​defence.​

​The​ ​right​ ​to​ ​cross-examine​ ​the​ ​prosecution​ ​witnesses​ ​is​ ​an​ ​essential​

​element​ ​of​ ​natural​ ​justice​ ​and​ ​anything​ ​that​ ​renders​ ​this​ ​right​

​ineffective must be struck down as unfair and invalid.​

​8.​ ​The​ ​second​ ​contention​ ​of​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​

​appellant​ ​is​ ​that​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​had​ ​made​ ​Ext.P14​ ​request​ ​to​ ​the​

​respondents​​to​​supply​​the​​copy​​of​​the​​complaint,​​but​​the​​same​​was​​not​

​supplied.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​further​ ​pointed​ ​out​ ​that​ ​even​ ​if​ ​there​

​may​​be​​no​​provision​​to​​participate​​in​​the​​preliminary​​enquiry,​​still​​it​​is​

​the​​obligation​​of​​the​​respondents​​to​​supply​​the​​copy​​of​​the​​complaint​

​to​ ​the​ ​delinquent,​ ​and​ ​in​ ​case​ ​of​​non​​supply,​​it​​violates​​Article​​311​​of​

​the​ ​Constitution​​of​​India.​ ​The​​learned​​counsel​​has​​placed​​reliance​​on​ ​W.A.No​​.859 of 2016​ ​11​ 2025:KER:70992​ ​

​the​​judgment​​of​​the​​Hon'ble​​Apex​​Court​​in​​the​​case​​of​​State​​of​​Madhya​

​Pradesh​​v.​​Chintaman​​Sadashiva​​Waishampayan​​[AIR​​1961​​S.C.​​1623]​ ​to​

​contend​ ​that​ ​the​ ​documents​ ​could​ ​not​ ​have​ ​been​ ​withheld​ ​from​ ​the​

​delinquent​​employee,​​since​​he​​would​​have​​been​​able​​to​​cross​​examine​

​the​ ​witnesses​ ​adequately​ ​and​ ​in​ ​its​ ​absence,​ ​he​ ​suffered​ ​from​

​handicapped,​ ​which​ ​in​ ​the​​result,​​deny​​him​​a​​reasonable​​opportunity​

​which​​is​​guaranteed​​to​​him​​under​​Article​​311(2)​​of​​the​​Constitution​​of​

​India.​

​9.​ ​Thirdly​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​submitted​ ​that​

​Ext.P17​ ​list​ ​of​ ​witnesses​ ​contained​ ​28​ ​witnesses.​ ​However,​ ​the​

​appellant​ ​was​ ​allowed​ ​to​ ​examine​ ​only​ ​three​ ​witnesses​ ​which​ ​again​

​violates​ ​Rule​ ​15(7)​ ​of​ ​the​ ​CCA​ ​Rules.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​

​appellant​​relied​​on​​the​​judgment​​of​​the​​Andhra​​Pradesh​​High​​Court​​in​

​the​​case​​of​​Mohd.​​Yousef​​Ali​​v.​​The​​State​​of​​Andhra​​Pradesh​​through​​the​ ​W.A.No​​.859 of 2016​ ​12​ 2025:KER:70992​ ​

​Secretary,​ ​Revenue​ ​Department,​ ​Hyderabad​ ​[1973​ ​(1)​ ​S.L.R.​ ​650]​ ​to​

​contend​ ​that​​the​​denial​​of​​a​​reasonable​​opportunity​​to​​cross-examine​

​the​ ​witnesses​ ​amounts​ ​to​ ​a​ ​denial​ ​of​ ​natural​ ​justice,​ ​since​ ​it​ ​is​ ​the​

​bounden​ ​duty​​of​​the​​Enquiry​​Officer​​to​​examine​​all​​the​​witnesses​​and​

​at​ ​this​ ​stage​ ​it​ ​would​ ​be​ ​futile​ ​to​ ​anticipate​ ​their​ ​value.​ ​He​ ​further​

​submitted​ ​that​ ​there​ ​is​ ​no​ ​provision​ ​which​ ​empowers​ ​the​ ​Enquiry​

​Officer to refuse to record the evidence for whatever reasons.​

​10.​ ​The​ ​fourth​ ​contention​ ​of​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​

​appellant​​is​​that​​the​​copy​​of​​the​​written​​arguments​​were​​not​​supplied​

​to​​him.​​The​​next​​contention​​is​​that​​the​​findings​​are​​perverse​​based​​on​

​no​ ​evidence,​ ​the​ ​complainant​ ​was​ ​not​ ​examined,​ ​the​ ​charges​ ​are​ ​so​

​vague​ ​that​ ​the​ ​charge​ ​sheet​ ​could​ ​not​ ​have​ ​been​ ​issued.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​the​

​settled​​legal​​position​​that​​charges​​must​​be​​specific​​and​​not​​general.​​In​ ​W.A.No​​.859 of 2016​ ​13​ 2025:KER:70992​ ​

​the​​present​​case,​​the​​charges​​levelled​​are​​general​​in​​nature,​​therefore,​

​could not have been upheld.​

​11.​​Finally,​​the​​learned​​counsel​​for​​the​​appellant​​submitted​​that​

​no​ ​witnesses​ ​have​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​demanded​ ​money​ ​and​

​received​ ​the​ ​same.​ ​The​ ​complainant​ ​was​ ​also​ ​not​ ​examined.​ ​One​

​important​ ​thing​ ​to​ ​notice​ ​is​ ​that​ ​as​ ​per​ ​Ext.P21,​ ​no​ ​complaints​ ​have​

​been​ ​received​ ​by​ ​the​ ​authorities​ ​against​ ​the​ ​appellant.​ ​The​ ​learned​

​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Single​ ​Judge​

​dismissed​ ​the​ ​writ​ ​petition​ ​on​ ​the​ ​ground​ ​of​ ​scope​ ​of​​judicial​​review​

​under​ ​Article​ ​226​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Constitution​ ​of​ ​India.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​settled​ ​legal​

​position​ ​that​ ​in​ ​case​ ​perversity​ ​is​ ​found​ ​in​ ​the​ ​order​ ​and​ ​the​

​procedure​ ​have​ ​not​ ​been​ ​followed,​ ​then​ ​certainly​ ​this​ ​Court​ ​has​

​powers​​to​​review​​the​​orders​​passed​​by​​the​​Disciplinary​​Authority.​​The​

​learned​​Single​​Judge​​ought​​not​​to​​have​​dismissed​​the​​writ​​petition,​​but​ ​W.A.No​​.859 of 2016​ ​14​ 2025:KER:70992​ ​

​ought​ ​to​ ​have​ ​allowed​ ​the​ ​same​ ​and​ ​directed​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​to​

​reinstate​​the​​appellant​​in​​service​​and​​grant​​all​​consequential​​benefits.​

​Hence this appeal.​

​12.​ ​Per​ ​contra,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​ ​respondents​

​vehemently​ ​opposed​ ​the​ ​afore​​prayer​​and​​submitted​​that​​revaluation​

​or​​reappreciation​​of​​evidence​​adduced​​before​​the​​enquiry​​authority​​is​

​not​ ​at​ ​all​ ​contemplated​ ​in​ ​a​ ​judicial​ ​review​ ​while​ ​exercising​ ​powers​

​under​​Article​​226​​of​​the​​Constitution​​of​​India.​​They​​placed​​reliance​​on​

​the​ ​Apex​ ​Court​ ​decision​ ​in​ ​the​ ​case​ ​of​ ​K.L.Shinde​ ​v.​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Mysore​

​[AIR​ ​1976​ ​SC​ ​1080],​ ​wherein​ ​it​ ​is​ ​held​ ​that​ ​whether​ ​or​ ​not​ ​there​ ​is​

​sufficient​​evidence​​against​​the​​delinquent​​to​​justify​​the​​punishment​​is​

​a​ ​matter​ ​on​ ​which​ ​this​ ​Court​ ​cannot​ ​embark.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​further​ ​observed​

​that​ ​the​ ​departmental​ ​proceedings​ ​do​ ​not​ ​stand​ ​on​ ​the​​same​​footing​

​as​ ​of​ ​a​ ​criminal​ ​prosecution,​ ​in​ ​which​ ​a​ ​high​ ​degree​ ​of​ ​proof​ ​is​ ​W.A.No​​.859 of 2016​ ​15​ 2025:KER:70992​ ​

​required.​ ​The​ ​departmental​ ​proceedings​ ​are​ ​not​ ​governed​ ​by​ ​strict​

​Rules​​of​​evidence​​as​​contained​​in​​the​​Evidence​​Act.​​They​​further​​relied​

​on​ ​another​ ​decision​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Hon'ble​ ​Apex​ ​Court​ ​in​​the​​case​​of​​State​​of​

​Mysore​​v.​​Shivabasappa​​[AIR​​1963​​SC​​375]​ ​wherein​​the​​Apex​​Court​​has​

​observed​ ​that​ ​the​ ​domestic​ ​tribunals​ ​exercising​ ​quasi-judicial​

​functions​ ​are​ ​not​ ​courts​ ​and​ ​therefore,​ ​they​ ​are​ ​not​ ​bound​ ​to​ ​follow​

​the​ ​procedure​ ​prescribed​ ​for​ ​trial​ ​of​ ​actions​ ​in​ ​courts​ ​nor​ ​are​ ​they​

​bound​​by​​strict​​Rules​​of​​evidence.​​They​​can​​obtain​​all​​information​​and​

​materials​ ​for​ ​the​ ​points​ ​under​ ​enquiry​ ​from​ ​all​ ​sources​ ​and​ ​through​

​all​ ​channels,​ ​without​ ​being​ ​fettered​ ​by​ ​Rules​ ​and​ ​proceedings​

​governed​​in​​court.​​The​​Apex​​Court​​further​​went​​on​​to​​observe​​that​​the​

​only​​obligation​​which​​law​​casts​​on​​them​​is​​that,​​they​​should​​not​​act​​on​

​any​ ​information​ ​which​ ​they​ ​may​ ​receive​ ​unless​ ​they​ ​put​ ​it​ ​to​ ​the​

​parties​ ​against​ ​whom​ ​it​ ​is​ ​to​ ​be​​used​​and​​give​​him​​a​​fair​​opportunity​ ​W.A.No​​.859 of 2016​ ​16​ 2025:KER:70992​ ​

​to​ ​explain​ ​it.​ ​They​ ​pointed​ ​out​ ​a​ ​decision​ ​of​ ​this​ ​Court​​in​​the​​case​​of​

​Syndicate​ ​Bank​ ​v.​ ​B.K.Mahim​ ​[2000​ ​(2)​ ​KLJ​ ​151]​ ​wherein​ ​it​ ​held​ ​that​

​while​ ​exercising​ ​powers​ ​of​ ​judicial​ ​review,​ ​the​ ​High​ ​Court​ ​cannot​

​normally​ ​substitute​ ​their​ ​own​ ​conclusions​ ​to​ ​impose​ ​penalty.​ ​In​ ​the​

​said​ ​decision,​ ​while​ ​reversing​ ​the​ ​judgment​ ​of​ ​a​ ​Single​ ​Judge,​ ​the​

​Bench​ ​observed​ ​that,​ ​it​ ​was​ ​not​ ​justifiable​ ​to​ ​sit​ ​in​ ​over​ ​judgment​ ​of​

​the​ ​Enquiry​ ​Officer​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​the​ ​orders​ ​passed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​disciplinary​

​authority.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​found​ ​that​ ​a​ ​judicial​ ​review​ ​is​ ​possible​ ​only​ ​in​

​exceptional​​and​​rare​​cases​​where​​the​​High​​Court​​exercising​​powers​​of​

​judicial​ ​review​ ​is​ ​of​ ​the​ ​opinion​ ​that​ ​it​ ​shocks​ ​the​ ​conscience​ ​of​ ​the​

​court​ ​that​ ​the​ ​decision​ ​was​ ​totally​ ​not​ ​supported​ ​by​ ​any​ ​cogent​

​reasons.​​They​​relied​​on​​another​​decision​​of​​this​​Court​​in​​Pushkaran​​v.​

​State​ ​of​ ​Kerala​ ​[2005​ ​(2)​ ​KLJ​ ​484]​ ​it​ ​was​ ​observed​ ​that,​ ​in​ ​normal​

​circumstances​​the​​punishment​​cannot​​be​​interfered​​with​​by​​the​​Court​ ​W.A.No​​.859 of 2016​ ​17​ 2025:KER:70992​ ​

​in​ ​exercise​ ​of​ ​writ​ ​jurisdiction​ ​on​ ​mere​ ​non-compliance​ ​of​

​technicalities​ ​or​ ​procedural​ ​formalities.​ ​They​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​in​ ​view​

​of​​the​​aforesaid,​​no​​ground​​is​​made​​out​​to​​interfere​​with​​the​​judgment​

​passed​​by​​the​​learned​​Single​​Judge​​and​​the​​writ​​appeal​​deserves​​to​​be​

​dismissed.​

​13.​ ​Heard​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​ ​parties​ ​and​ ​perused​ ​the​

​records.​

​14.​ ​We​ ​have​ ​considered​​the​​contentions​​put​​forth.​​The​​scope​​of​

​interference​ ​by​ ​the​ ​High​ ​Court​ ​in​ ​disciplinary​ ​proceedings​ ​is​ ​no​

​longer​ ​res​ ​integra.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Rajasthan​ ​and​ ​others​ ​v.​ ​Bhupendra​

​Singh​ ​[2024​ ​KLT​ ​OnLine​ ​2034​ ​(SC)]​​,​ ​the​ ​Hon'ble​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​had​

​affirmatively​​quoted​​the​​dictum​​laid​​down​​in​​State​​of​​Andhra​​Pradesh​​v​

​S Sree Rama Rao, [AIR 1963 SC 1723]​​, which reads as​​follows:​

"​ 7.​​........​​The​​High​​Court​​is​​not​​constituted​​in​​a​​proceeding​ ​under​ ​Article​ ​226​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Constitution​​a​​Court​​of​​appeal​​over​​the​ ​W.A.No​​.859 of 2016​ ​18​ 2025:KER:70992​ ​

​ ecision​ ​of​ ​the​ ​authorities​ ​holding​ ​a​ ​departmental​ ​enquiry​ d ​against​​a​​public​​servant​​it​​is​​concerned​​to​​determine​​whether​​the​ ​enquiry​ ​is​ ​held​ ​by​ ​an​ ​authority​ ​competent​ ​in​ ​that​ ​behalf,​ ​and​ ​according​ ​to​ ​the​ ​procedure​ ​prescribed​ ​in​ ​that​ ​behalf,​ ​and​ ​whether​​the​​rules​​of​​natural​​justice​​are​​not​​violated.​​Where​​there​ ​is​​some​​evidence,​​which​​the​​authority​​entrusted​​with​​the​​duty​​to​ ​hold​ ​the​ ​enquiry​ ​has​ ​accepted​ ​and​ ​which​ ​evidence​ ​may​ ​reasonably​ ​support​ ​the​ ​conclusion​​that​​the​​delinquent​​officer​​is​ ​guilty​ ​of​​the​​charge,​​it​​is​​not​​the​​function​​of​​the​​High​​Court​​in​​a​ ​petition​ ​for​ ​a​ ​writ​ ​under​​Article​​226​​to​​review​​the​​evidence​​and​ ​to​ ​arrive​ ​at​ ​an​ ​independent​ ​finding​ ​on​ ​the​ ​evidence.​ ​The​ ​High​ ​Court​ ​may​ ​undoubtedly​ ​interfere​ ​where​ ​the​ ​departmental​ ​authorities​​have​​held​​the​​proceedings​​against​​the​​delinquent​​in​​a​ ​manner​ ​inconsistent​ ​with​ ​the​ ​rules​ ​of​ ​natural​ ​justice​ ​or​ ​in​ ​violation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​statutory​​rules​​prescribing​​the​​mode​​of​​enquiry​ ​or​​where​​the​​authorities​​have​​disabled​​themselves​​from​​reaching​ ​a​ ​fair​ ​decision​ ​by​ ​some​ ​considerations​ ​extraneous​ ​to​ ​the​ ​evidence​​and​​the​​merits​​of​​the​​case​​or​​by​​allowing​​themselves​​to​ ​be​ ​influenced​ ​by​ ​irrelevant​ ​considerations​ ​or​ ​where​ ​the​ ​conclusion​ ​on​ ​the​ ​very​ ​face​ ​of​ ​it​ ​is​ ​so​ ​wholly​ ​arbitrary​ ​and​ ​capricious​ ​that​ ​no​ ​reasonable​ ​person​​could​​ever​​have​​arrived​​at​ ​that​ ​conclusion,​ ​or​ ​on​ ​similar​ ​grounds​​.​ ​But​ ​the​ ​departmental​ ​authorities​​are,​​if​​the​​enquiry​​is​​otherwise​​properly​​held,​​the​​sole​ ​judges​​of​​facts​​and​​if​​there​​be​​some​​legal​​evidence​​on​​which​​their​ ​findings​ ​can​ ​be​ ​based,​ ​the​ ​adequacy​ ​or​ ​reliability​ ​of​ ​that​ ​evidence​​is​​not​​a​​matter​​which​​can​​be​​permitted​​to​​be​​canvassed​ ​before​​the​​High​​Court​​in​​a​​proceeding​​for​​a​​writ​​under​​Article​​226​ ​of the Constitution." (emphasis supplied)​ ​W.A.No​​.859 of 2016​ ​19​ 2025:KER:70992​ ​

​15.​ ​After​ ​a​ ​detailed​ ​survey​ ​of​ ​the​ ​precedents​ ​on​ ​the​ ​point​

​including​ ​the​ ​dictum​ ​laid​ ​down​ ​in​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Andhra​ ​Pradesh​ ​v.​ ​Chitra​

​Venkata​ ​Rao​ ​[(1975)​ ​2​ ​SCC​ ​557]​​;​ ​State​ ​Bank​ ​of​ ​Patiala​ ​and​ ​others​ ​v.​

​S.K.Sharma​ ​[(1996)​ ​3​ ​SCC​ ​364]​​;​​Union​ ​of​ ​India​ ​v​ ​KG​ ​Soni​ ​[(2006)​ ​6​ ​SCC​

​794​​]​;​​State​​of​​Uttar​​Pradesh​​v​​Man​​Mohan​​Nath​​Sinha​​[(2009)​​8​​SCC​​310]​​;​

​State​​Bank​​of​​India​​v​​Ram​​Lal​​Bhaskar​​[(2011)​​10​​SCC​​249]​​;​​Bharti​​Airtel​

​Limited​ ​v.​ ​A.S.Raghavendra​​[(2024)​​6​​SCC​​418]​​,​​it​​was​​concluded​​by​​the​

​Hon'ble​ ​Court​ ​in​ ​Bhupendra​ ​Singh​ ​(supra)​ ​that​ ​while​ ​reappraisal​ ​of​

​facts​ ​and​ ​evidence​ ​is​ ​not​ ​impermissible​ ​by​ ​the​ ​High​ ​Court,​ ​the​

​infirmity​ ​in​ ​the​ ​underlying​​order​​has​​to​​be​​greater​​than​​ordinary.​​We​

​deem​ ​it​ ​necessary​ ​to​ ​thus​ ​remind​ ​ourselves​ ​of​ ​the​ ​law​ ​on​ ​the​ ​point​

​that​​the​​Writ​​Court​​cannot​​interfere​​in​​the​​findings​​until​​and​​unless​​it​

​is​ ​shown​ ​that​ ​there​ ​has​ ​been​ ​certain​ ​violations​ ​of​ ​guidelines​ ​in​

​binding precedents and that none such is found in the matter at hand.​ ​W.A.No​​.859 of 2016​ ​20​ 2025:KER:70992​ ​

​16.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​Single​ ​Judge​ ​has​ ​examined​ ​the​ ​case​ ​in​ ​great​

​detail.​ ​The​ ​Single​ ​Judge​ ​has​ ​also​ ​considered​ ​the​ ​scope​ ​and​ ​ambit​ ​of​

​judicial​​review​ ​under​​Article​​226​​of​​the​​Constitution​​of​​India.​​There​​is​

​ample​​evidence​​available​​on​​record​​to​​come​​to​​the​​conclusion​​that​​one​

​person​ ​named​ ​Sri.Radhakrishnan​ ​had​ ​contacted​ ​various​ ​clients​ ​and​

​their​ ​relatives​ ​and​ ​had​ ​also​ ​made​ ​attempts​ ​to​ ​persuade​ ​them​ ​to​​give​

​bribes​ ​to​ ​the​ ​appellant,​ ​promising​ ​higher​ ​amounts​ ​as​ ​compensation.​

​In​ ​some​ ​cases,​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​met​ ​with​ ​clients,​ ​engaged​ ​in​

​conversations​​regarding​​the​​cases,​​and​​negotiated​​the​​amount​​of​​bribe​

​as​​well​​as​​the​​compensation​​he​​should​​pay​​to​​them.​​From​​the​​evidence​

​it​ ​is​ ​clear​ ​that​ ​PW​ ​22​ ​was​ ​taken​ ​to​ ​the​ ​appellant's​ ​residence​​and​​had​

​engaged​ ​in​ ​a​ ​conversation​ ​and​ ​that​ ​the​ ​evidence​ ​of​ ​PW22​ ​was​ ​found​

​reliable.​ ​The​ ​detailed​ ​narration​ ​of​ ​the​ ​evidence​ ​is​ ​also​​reproduced​​in​

​Ext.P20.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​Single​ ​Judge​ ​also​ ​found​ ​that​ ​there​ ​was​ ​ample​ ​W.A.No​​.859 of 2016​ ​21​ 2025:KER:70992​ ​

​evidence​ ​adduced​ ​before​ ​the​ ​enquiry​​officer​​to​​prove​​that​​the​​person​

​named​ ​Sri.Radhakrishnan​ ​had​ ​contacted​ ​at​ ​least​ ​three​ ​other​ ​clients​

​under​ ​similar​ ​circumstances​ ​and​ ​demanded​ ​bribes​ ​for​ ​the​ ​appellant,​

​for​ ​passing​ ​the​ ​awards.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​Single​ ​Judge​ ​has​ ​also​ ​relied​ ​on​

​various​ ​judgments​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Hon'ble​ ​Apex​ ​Court​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​this​​Court​​to​

​come​ ​to​ ​the​ ​conclusion​ ​that​ ​there​ ​is​ ​ample​ ​and​​reliable​​material​​and​

​evidence​ ​available​ ​on​​record​​to​​support​​the​​conclusions.​​The​​findings​

​arrived​ ​by​ ​the​ ​enquiring​ ​authority​ ​are​ ​based​ ​on​ ​all​ ​circumstantial​

​evidence​ ​and​ ​on​ ​preponderance​ ​of​ ​probabilities.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​Single​

​Judge​​has​​rightly​​come​​to​​the​​conclusion​​that​​the​​order​​is​​not​​perverse​

​or​ ​totally​ ​baseless​ ​and​ ​absolutely​ ​there​ ​is​ ​no​ ​evidence​ ​in​ ​support​ ​of​

​such​ ​contentions.​ ​The​​contentions​​raised​​by​​the​​appellant​​in​​the​​writ​

​petition​ ​have​ ​been​ ​dealt​ ​with​ ​properly​ ​by​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Single​ ​Judge,​

​therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal.​ ​W.A.No​​.859 of 2016​ ​22​ 2025:KER:70992​ ​

​Accordingly​ ​the​ ​writ​ ​appeal​ ​is​ ​hereby​ ​dismissed​ ​and​ ​the​

​judgment​​passed​​by​​the​​learned​​Single​​Judge​​is​​upheld.​​No​​order​​as​​to​

​costs.​

​Sd/-​

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI​ ​ JUDGE​ ​

Sd/-​ ​ SYAM KUMAR V.M.​ ​ JUDGE​ ​

MC​ ​