Madras High Court
Tmt. Sherly Reenuja vs The Principal Secretary To ... on 12 September, 2023
W.P No. 33566 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.09.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P No. 33566 of 2018
And
W.M.P.No. 38952 of 2018
Tmt. Sherly Reenuja ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Principal Secretary to Government
Commercial Tax and Registration (K) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Inspector General of Registration
Office of the Inspector General of Registration
100, Santhome High Road,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order
made in G.O.(D)No. 198, Commercial Tax and Registration (K) Department
dated 13.08.2018 whereby confirming the punishment made in proceedings
No.29511/v1/2010-2 on the file of the Inspector General of Registration,
Chennai dated 10.07.2017 and quash the same as null and void.
Page 1 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No. 33566 of 2018
For Petitioner : Mr. D.Veerasekaran
For Respondents : Mr. K.Surendharan
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorari seeking
records relating to the order made in G.O.(D)No. 198, Commercial Tax and
Registration (K) Department dated 13.08.2018 confirming the punishment
made in proceedings No.29511/v1/2010-2 on the file of the Inspector
General of Registration, Chennai dated 10.07.2017 and quash the same.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant and posted in
Sub-Registrar Office, Eranel on 12.10.2009. She was then transfered in the
Sub-Registrar Office at Boothapandi in Kannyakumari District on
02.05.2014. She had been subsequently transfered to Sub Registrar Officer
at Kottaram on 01.06.2017 and then transfered to Sub Registrar Officer at
Thovalai, Kannyakumari District on 13.05.2018. When she was working as
Junior Assistant in Sub Registrar Office at Boothapandi, a charge memo had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No. 33566 of 2018
been issued against her. In effect, in the charge memo, it had been stated
that on 27.05.2010 a team of officials attached to the District Inspection
Cell and Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department had conducted a
surprise inspection at Sub Registrar Office at Boothapandi at about 05.45
p.m., which went on till 09.00 p.m. They had seized a sum of Rs.2,020/-
from the concrete shelf in the record room. It was inferred that the said
amount had been collected as bribe from the general public or from those,
who had come over to the Sub Registrar Office for registration of various
documents or for any other official purpose. The Officials had actually also
found a sum of Rs.8,200/- a sum of Rs.3,700/- and a sum of Rs.1,500/-
which allegedly belonged to document writers M.Nagarajan, M.Thamburan
and K.Kannan. In view of all these allegations, a charge memo had been
issued.
3. The charges against the document writers were held not
proved. So far as the petitioner is concerned, after enquiry, the enquiry
officer returned a finding that the charges were not established. In effect, it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No. 33566 of 2018
was held that it was not possible to hold that the amount of Rs.2,020/- found
in the concrete shelf in the record room of Sub Registrar Officer,
Boothapandi was bribe amount received by the petitioner herein.
4. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority / the second respondent,
Inspector General of Registration at Chennai, re-examined the entire file
and he accepted the finding with respect to the document writers against
whom the enquiry officer had found that the charges had not been proved
but however with respect to the charge No.1 relating to seizure of
Rs.2,020/- in the concrete shelf at the record room, the disciplinary
authority differred from the finding of the enqiury officer and stated that the
finding was contrary to the statement of the Deputy Inspection Cell Officer.
It was stated that no explanation had been given as to how the said amount
had come to the concrete shelf in the record room and holding that the
petitioner had received the said amount as bribe, proceeded to impose a
punishment of cut of stoppage of increment for a period of 6 months
without cumulative effect.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No. 33566 of 2018
5. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
procedure before imposing such punishment has been followed including
issuing notice to the petitioner herein.
6. This particular order of the second respondent was
subsequently confirmed by the first respondent, who passed G.O.Ms.No.
198, Commercial Tax and Registration (K) Department, dated 13.08.2018.
Questioning these orders, the Writ Petition has been filed.
7. In the counter affidavit filed, it had been stated that on
27.05.2010 a surprise inspection was conducted by the District Inspection
Cell and by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department between 05.45
p.m., and 09.00 p.m. It was stated that unaccounted money of Rs.2,020/-
was seized in the concrete shelf of the record room. It had been stated that
the enquiry officer had not analysed the evidence of the District Inspection
Cell Officer. It had also been stated that the disciplinary authority had every
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No. 33566 of 2018
right to differ from the findings of the enquiry officer with respect to the
said amount and to draw a conclusion that it was actually bribe amount
received from the general public and it was the petitioner, who was working
as junior assistant, who had so received the bribe amount. The punishment
of stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect was
justified in the counter affidavit. It was also stated that the Government had
also carefully considered all the surrounding circumstances and had
confirmed the said punishment. It was finally stated that the Writ Petition
should be dismissed.
8. Heard arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner and also the learned Additional Government
Pleader appearing on the side of the respondents.
9. The entire issues surrounds a surprise inspection conducted by
the District Inspection Cell and also by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption
Department at Kannyakumari on 27.05.2010 at Sub Registrar Office,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No. 33566 of 2018
Boothapandi in Kannyakumari District between 05.45 p.m., and 09.00 p.m.
At that particular point of time in the concrete shelf of the record room, a
sum of Rs.2,020/- was found. No explanation was given as to how it came
to be there and who kept it there and from whom it was received and by
whom it was kept. The purpose of keeping the money in the concrete shelf
could also not be detected. In the evidence of the Deputy Inspection Cell
Officer, it was asserted that the money was there.
10. But however, during the enquiry which was conducted
consequent to charges being framed against the petitioner herein, none of
the general public came forward to state that they had handed over such
money either to the petitioner or to any other staff of the Sub Registrar
Office at Boothapandi. There was no evidence of either demand or
acceptance of bribe money. The enquiry officer on the face of such evidence
held that the allegation was not proved.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No. 33566 of 2018
11. It must also be stated that simultaneously three other sums,
namely, Rs.8,200/-, Rs.3,700/- and Rs.1,500/- were also recovered and an
explanation was given that it belonged to three separate document writers.
On that ground the second charge which had been framed was also held not
proved.
12. The evidence of the Deputy Inspector Cell Officer was with
respect to the recovery of the amount in the concrete shelf in the record
room. But there is no evidence as to how it came there. There was not a
single piece of evidence adduced by any one individual that there was a
demand of bribe and of handing over of bribe amount and simultaneous
acceptance of bribe amount. There is no evidence that there was demand of
bribe and a direction to place the bribe amount in the concrete shelf of the
record room. It was only natural that the enquiry officer, in the absence of
any evidence, therefore held that the charges were not proved.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No. 33566 of 2018
13. The second respondent however differed from the findings
therein. The primary ground on which the second respondent differred was
by placing reliance on the evidence of the Deputy Inspection Cell Officer.
That particular evidence once again related only to the detection of the
amount and the recovery of the amount. But it is trite in law to point out
that unless demand is established, the charge of bribe cannot be held
established.
14. The primary factory is demand of bribe and thereafter, there
has got to be acceptance and then recovery. Without there being a demand
and if unaccounted money is found, an explanation could always be given
as to how that amount came to be in the possession of the charged official
an if such explanation is given, that explanation has o be examined in its
proper light. It cannot be brushed aside. When there is no evidence of
demand of bribe, it would be stretching issue too far to hold that every
money recovered was a result of bribe being demanded and the same being
accepted. More over, there is no finding given as to why the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No. 33566 of 2018
among all other staff was singled out to be issued with this charge memo.
There has been no evidence that there has been a demand by the petitioner
either individually or as Junior Assistant from any of the witnesses who
were called upon to tender evidence during the enquiry. There is no
evidence to link the petitioner with the amount found in the concrete shelf
in the record room. It is therefore highly improbable that the petitioner
would be the only person who could be charged with the money found in
the concrete shelf.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the
Judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 4339 of 2014
[ S.Gurumoorthy Vs. the Secretary to Government, Commercial Tax and
Registration Department at Chennai and two others] dated 13.06.2014.
That case was also on similar facts wherein during surprise inspection, a
sum of Rs.74,580/- was recovered from the office premises of the petitioner
therein. The learned Singe Judge had observed as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No. 33566 of 2018
“7. As I have already pointed out, the
punishment imposed on the petitioner is only
in respect of charge No.3. Charge No.3
states that a sum of Rs.74850/- was
recovered somewhere from the office of the
petitioner. Admittedly, the money was not
recovered either from the petitioner or from
his Box, Bureau or Table. The place of
recovery of the amount was behind the seat
of A.2 officer. There is no evidence available
anywhere that the petitioner had knowledge
about the said amount being kept behind the
seat of A.2 officer. It may be true that the
claim of P.W.5 was not accepted by the
Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings
and consequently, by the disciplinary
authority also. Simply because, the claim
made by P.W.5 that he only kept the money in
the said place was not accepted by the
Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings
and consequently by the disciplinary
authority, it cannot be concluded that the
money was kept in the office premises either
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No. 33566 of 2018
by the petitioner or by the other accused
officers with his knowledge. There has to be
positive evidence to prove either that the
petitioner kept the money there or that at
least he had any knowledge. Ofourse it is
true that in the departmental proceedings,
charges need not be proved beyond any
doubt, as in the case of criminal case and it
is suffice that if the charge is proved by
applying the principle of preponderance of
probabilities. But, in this case, absolutely,
there is no evidence even to attribute
knowledge, that the above said amount was
kept elsewhere in the office of the petitioner.
When that be so, at no stretch of
imagination, it can be concluded that the
petitioner was responsible for the said
amount. Thus, in my considered opinion, the
finding given by the Commissioner for
Disciplinary proceedings is perverse and the
same is based totally on no evidence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No. 33566 of 2018
8. I am conscious of the fact that in a
writ proceeding, this Court cannot re-
appreciate the evidence adduced in the
disciplinary proceedings but, at the same
time, it is permissible for the Court to
interfere with the order of punishment when
the Court finds that the said finding is totally
baseless which is based on no evidence. In
this case, since, I have hold that there was
no evidence at all available to hold that the
petitioner is guilty of charge No.3, the
finding given by the Commissioner for
Disciplinary Proceedings that the petitioner
is guilty of Charge No.3 and the
consequential Government Order imposing
punishment on the petitioner are liable to be
set aside.
9. In the result, the writ petition is
allowed and the impugned charge
memorandum and G.O.(D) No.691
Commercial Tax and Registration (H)
Department dated 20.12.2013 are liable to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No. 33566 of 2018
be set aside and the petitioner is exonerated
from Charge No.3. The petitioner shall be
permitted to retire from the date on which he
had attained the age of superannuation, if,
there was no other legal impediment and he
shall be paid all the retirement benefits by
the respondents. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed ”
16. The learned Single Judge had also found that there was no
evidence available that the petitioner therein was guilty of the charges
framed. Even in that particular case, the amount which was found, was
held, could not be linked to the petitioner therein.
17. In the instant case, as a matter of fact, there is no evidence that
there was any demand of bribe specifically by the petitioner herein, or by
any other staff in the Sub Registrar Office.
18. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No. 33566 of 2018
the Judgement of a learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 13392 of 2017 dated
10.01.2010 [ A.Arumuga Navaraj Vs. The Additional Chief Secretary to
Government, Commercial Tax and Registration (K) Department at
Chennai and another]. Even in that particular case, there was a surprise
inspection by the Deputy Inspection Cell and the Vigilance Anti Corruption
Department at Vellore District in Sub Registrar Office at Ambur and cash
and demand drafts for Rs.3,59,823/- had been recovered.
19. The learned Single Judge on examination of the facts, had also
followed the ratio laid down in S.Gurumoorthy referred supra and held that
unless there is direct evidence to link the amount with the charged official
no conclusion can be drawn that the charged official had demanded bribe
and accepted bribe. The ratio laid down would directly applicable to the
facts of this case.
20. The contention of the respondents that no explanation had been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No. 33566 of 2018
given by the petitioner for the presence of the said amount of Rs.2,020/-
though considered, cannot be countenanced since if the petitioner had no
knowledge as to how the money was kept there, there cannot be any
explanation given by her. Therefore the absence of explanation would not
come to the disadvantage of the petitioner herein.
21. In the result, I hold that the impugned orders must be set side
and the punishment imposed is interfered with and also set aside. Both the
impugned orders are quashed.
22. The Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
vsg 12.09.2023
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P No. 33566 of 2018
vsg
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government
Commercial Tax and Registration (K) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Inspector General of Registration
Office of the Inspector General of Registration
100, Santhome High Road,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
W.P No. 33566 of 2018
And
W.M.P.No. 38952 of 2018
12.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
