Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1142 (BOM)

Sahivanagouda H. Patil v. Union of India

2014-05-07

G.S.KULKARNI, V.M.KANADE

body2014
Judgment : G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. We are reminded of the following words of Victor Hugo ‘Our acts make or mar us, we are children of our own deeds.’ 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner assails the judgment and order dated 6.11.1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short 'Tribunal') in Original Application No.324 of 1993 filed by the petitioner under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The tribunal has dismissed the Original Application thereby upholding the termination of the Petitioner’s services. The facts are:- 2. The petitioner was working as a Scientific Officer in the National Agriculture Division of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai. The petitioner had joined Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (B.A.R.C.) in the month of May 1957 as Junior Scientific Assistant. It is the petitioner’s case that he had a meritorious career. By his successful research he developed high yielding and disease tolerant groundnut seed varieties which are even now commercially cultivated and has benefited the nation. This work of the petitioner was appreciated and was rewarded. The petitioner was granted promotions to higher grades till 1976 when the petitioner was promoted as a Scientific Officer SO/SE in the grade (Rs.12000-16500 revised). 3. It is the petitioner's case that one Shri N.S.Rao was also a contender for the same B.A.R.C. service in the year 1957 who was given the post of Senior Scientific Assistant for his 9 years previous job experience. Shri N.S.Rao became the Head, Biology and Agriculture Division during 1971-72 and the petitioner was officially reporting to him. That both Shri N.S.Rao and the petitioner joined the services in May 1957 and started work in research programme “Application of Atomic Energy for Improvement of Agriculture”. Shri N.S.Rao was assigned rice (food crop) and the petitioner was assigned groundnut (oil seed crop) for improvement. The petitioner's hard work of 15 years resulted in developing 14 improved groundnut varieties which were known as Trombay Groundnut (TG). This research of the petitioner was recognised by the senior officers of the respondent no.3 and the petitioner was deputed to U.S.A. in 1967-68 and Italy in 1968 for advanced training in Agricultural Technologies. The petitioner's hard work of 15 years resulted in developing 14 improved groundnut varieties which were known as Trombay Groundnut (TG). This research of the petitioner was recognised by the senior officers of the respondent no.3 and the petitioner was deputed to U.S.A. in 1967-68 and Italy in 1968 for advanced training in Agricultural Technologies. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research New Delhi, a body undertaking national testing of new varieties of seeds also recognised the petitioners' two varieties for their potential benefits and “released” TG 1 and TG 3in 1973 for commercial cultivation by farmers in India. This resulted in jealously of Shri N.S.Rao towards the petitioner who was one day to be the immediate superior of the petitioner. 4. The then Director, B.A.R.C. Dr.R.Ramanna had exhorted scientists to become public Relations Organisers (PRO) for their own products. Accordingly, the then Biology Group Director Dr.K.Sundaram advised the petitioner to arrange demonstrations for benefit of farmers on private farms also to popularize the improved TG varieties developed by the petitioner. The petitioner had accepted the challenge in the interest of improvement of oilseeds production in the country. Even Vanaspati Manufacturers Association of India being a channelising agency for oil and oil seeds import was also interested in increasing oil seed production in the country and on getting knowledge of the achievements of the petitioner had approached the respondent no. 3 for TG 1 and TG 3 seeds and this initiated a collaboration program between B.A.R.C. and the said association in 1974. The petitioner was the recipient of the prestigious ICAR Awards at the hands of the then Union Agriculture Minister in December, 1978. Several other awards were received by the petitioner including an award at the hands of the Prime Minister of India in April 1979. On the other hand, Shri N.S.Rao did not receive any Award although he was recommended for the same several times. The petitioner's research was recognised by International agencies such as Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), Swedish International Development Agency which lead to grant of collaborative research contracts to the petitioner. The petitioner received several invitations from different countries and also was required to travel to countries like Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Malaysia, East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Thailand and Bangaladesh. The petitioner continued in his research achievements. 5. The petitioner received several invitations from different countries and also was required to travel to countries like Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Malaysia, East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Thailand and Bangaladesh. The petitioner continued in his research achievements. 5. It is the Petitioner’s case that in the year 1979 when Shri N.S.Rao became Head of the Biology group and later as an Associate Director with more administrative powers and on account of his jealousy towards the petitioner and his achievements locked the petitioner's promotion and prospects of the petitioner during 1980 by registering a false complaints in July 1979 and following it to be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. 6. A first information report dated 14.11.1980 was filed with the CBI, Bombay Branch against the petitioner alleging that the TG seeds which were to be supplied free of cost by the B.A.R.C. and in return the recipients of the seeds are required to submit data on the performance of the seeds. The petitioner had supplied seeds to certain persons as named therein and that the petitioner collected money from each of the said persons who did not pass any receipts for the said amount. It was alleged that the amounts fraudulently obtained were appropriated by the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner had committed offence under Indian Penal Code read with Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1947. The petitioner has stated that the CBI, however, dropped the case against the petitioner, as no material was found to undertake prosecution against the petitioner. 7. The respondents however decided to proceed against the petitioner departmentally and a chargesheet dated 13.10.1992 was issued to the petitioner alongwith the statement of imputation of misconduct in support of the articles of charges. The relevant articles being Article IV and Article V which read as under:- “Article IV :- The said Shri.S.H.Patil accepted a sum of Rs.2295/- from Shri.Girivanavasi Pragati Mandal towards the cost of 510 kgs. Of T.G. Seeds of BARC supplied to the said Trust by Shri.S.H.Patil from Seizmic Array Station, BARC Gauribiadanur and the said Shri.S.H.Patil misappropriated the same. Shri. S.H. Patilby his above acts exhibited lack of integrity and thereby contravened Rule 3(1)(i) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. “Article V :- The said Shri.S.H.Patil accepted a sum of Rs.500/- towards the cost of 100 kgs. Shri. S.H. Patilby his above acts exhibited lack of integrity and thereby contravened Rule 3(1)(i) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. “Article V :- The said Shri.S.H.Patil accepted a sum of Rs.500/- towards the cost of 100 kgs. T.G.seeds from Shri.C.A.Muthanna of Avoka Estate, South Coorg (Karnataka) supplied to him at the instance of Shri.S.H.Patil. Shri.S.H.Patilby his above acts exhibited lack of integrity and thereby contravened Rule 3(1)(i) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules,1964.” 8. The respondents appointed Shri.K.K.Garde as an Inquiry officer to conduct an inquiry against the petitioner and submit a report in that regard. Shri.K.K.Garde was the Commissioner Departmental inquiries with the Central Vigilance Commission of the Government of India. The Inquiry officer conducted an inquiry against the petitioner in which an opportunity was given to the parties including the petitioner to produce all the relevant documents and witnesses in support of their respective cases. The Department examined its witnesses in support of the charges and the relevant documents were also furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner was also granted complete opportunity to defend his case. 9. On the conclusion of the inquiry, the petitioner submitted his defence brief dated 3.1.1985 in which the petitioner made submissions on each of the charges. The petitioner inter alia contended that the petitioner was being victimized at the instance of Shri.N.S.Rao. In regard to Charge nos.IV and V, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation denying the said charges as also the contents of statement of imputation were denied by the petitioner and submitted that none of the charges have been proved against him and prayed for exoneration of the charges levelled against him. 10. The Inquiry officer submitted his report dated 8.3.1985 to the Disciplinary Authority holding that Charge nos.I to III were not proved and that Charge nos.IV and V were proved against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority considered the report of the Inquiry officer and accepting the same held that charge of having acted in a manner displaying lack of integrity and misconducting himself during the course of employment stood completely established and passed an order dated 2.11.1988 terminating the petitioner's services. 11. The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No.879 of 1988. 11. The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No.879 of 1988. The Central Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 6.6.1991 allowed the original application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the copy of the inquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner before passing the dismissal order. The dismissal order dated 2.11.1988 was set aside. It was observed that if the Disciplinary Authority desires to proceed with the inquiry after a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report being furnished to the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority was free to do so, in which case the petitioner be granted opportunity of making his representation with respect to the report of inquiry officer and a personal hearing be given to the petitioner. It was observed that the Disciplinary Authority after considering the representation, if any, made by the petitioner with regard to the report of the Inquiry Officer and the advice given by the Union Public Service Commission, would be free to deal with all the points that may be raised by the petitioner. 12. In pursuance of the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 18.10.1991, however, on the same day he was placed under suspension. This order of placing the petitioner under suspension was challenged by the petitioner by filing Original Application no.271 of 1992 which was rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal by order dated 7.9.1992. 13. In pursuance of order dated 6.6.1991 of Central Administrative Tribunal, the disciplinary proceedings were further proceeded against the petitioner from the stage of forwarding the copy of Inquiry report. The petitioner was asked to file his submissions on the inquiry report. The petitioner made his submission on the inquiry report by his letter dated 29.10.1991. The submissions of the petitioner were forwarded to the President, as also advice of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) was obtained. After taking into consideration the Inquiry Report, and the advice of the UPSC dated 3.2.1993, the President imposed on the petitioner a penalty of dismissal from the service on the petitioner to take effect immediately by an order dated 26.3.1993. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order dated 26.3.1993 by approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application no.324 of 1993. 14. The Central Administrative Tribunal by the impugned judgment and order dated 6.11.1998 dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order dated 26.3.1993 by approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application no.324 of 1993. 14. The Central Administrative Tribunal by the impugned judgment and order dated 6.11.1998 dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner. Against this judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 15. We have heard Mr.Nerlekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.A.A.Athavale, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3. With the assistance of the learned Counsel we have gone through the paper book of the writ petition. 16. Mr. Nerlekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal is in error in rejecting the original application filed by the petitioner, in as much as it failed to consider that the present case was a case of victimization by the Superior on account of jealousy and enmity. It is submitted that the charges against the petitioner were false . As the three charges were held not to be proved and the petitioner's contentions that there is victimization against him is supported by the exoneration of said three charges. It is submitted that the contention of victimization ought to be equally applied to all the charges as they are similar. He further submitted that in fact the CBI had investigated on the FIR filed against the petitioner and had found no material to file a criminal prosecution. It is submitted that in fact the U.P.S.C. initially in first recommendation had stated that the charges were not thoroughly proved and hence, only a minor penalty be imposed. But however, subsequently UPSC had changed its recommendation. He submitted that charge nos.IV and V were vague and that the Department's case in inquiry was different than the articles of charge which were yet held to be proved. He submitted that the Inquiry Officer's report was perverse and that there was no evidence to prove that the petitioner had accepted or misappropriated money as specifically alleged in Charge nos.IV and V. It is further submitted that the Inquiry Officer had arrived at the findings on conjectures and surmises had held that the charges are proved on preponderance of probability. He further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority as also the Tribunal has gone beyond the Articles of charge and have held that the petitioner is guilty of actions not mentioned in the Articles of Charge. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further drawn the attention of the Court to the finding in the report of the Inquiry Officer to show that there was no money transaction with the petitioner. In respect of Charge no.V, he contends that it was Mr.V.B.Patil with whom the money transaction had taken place. It is submitted that it was only an inference that Mr.V.B.Patil acted on behalf of the petitioner and only on this basis the charge has been held to have been proved. It is then submitted that submits that the test of preponderance of probability cannot be stretched to reach the conclusion that though the petitioner has not received any money but the same must have been received on behalf of the petitioner. Similarly in respect of Charge no.V, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court to a specific contents of the Inquiry Report as also the findings recorded by the Tribunal to contend that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner. He submits that in respect of both the charges which are held to be proved against the petitioner, there was no allegation of demand of money by the petitioner. There was no evidence of acceptance of money by the petitioner and hence, the charge of misappropriation of money by the petitioner had no basis. It is further contended that Mr.V.B.Patil who is alleged to have accepted money on behalf of the petitioner was also not examined by the Department before the Inquiry officer. He submits that the test of preponderance of probability is per se not applicable in the facts of the present case. It is submitted that the order of dismissal ought to be set aside as also the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal be interfered with by this Court so as to grant reinstatement to the petitioner. In support of his submission the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gyan Chand Chattar, (2009)12 Supreme Court Cases 78. 17. In support of his submission the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gyan Chand Chattar, (2009)12 Supreme Court Cases 78. 17. On the other hand learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents has supported the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the findings of the Tribunal. He submits that the approach of the petitioner to pick and choose the findings of the Inquiry officer is not correct. He submits that the reading of the evidence in its entirety as also the findings of the Inquiry Officer clearly go to show that Charge nos.IV and V against the petitioner stood proved. He submits that the disciplinary authority on a careful scrutiny of the evidence has rightly held that under Charge nos.IV and V proved and as all the circumstances show that the Petitioner was the beneficiary of the money received as stated in the charge. It is submitted that the only conclusion which can be drawn after looking at the evidence is that the beneficiary of the said money was the petitioner. It is submitted that Mr.V.B.Patil was the petitioner’s brother-in-law and a person who was assigned the work to collect the cheque of Rs.2295/- from Mr.D.D.Mehta - the Accountant of Somaiya Group of Companies. He submits that to rebut the case of the Department, the petitioner had ample opportunity to examine Mr.V.B.Patil. However, the petitioner has not examined Mr.V.B.Patil. Further in regard to Charge no.V, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the handwritten draft telegram though not signed by the petitioner, was proved to be in his handwriting. As also from the other several circumstances as narrated in the report of the Inquiry officer, it is clearly proved that the petitioner was the beneficiary of the amount of Rs.500/- paid by Shri. Muthanna as contained in the charge. He submits the Disciplinary Authority as also the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the evidence which has come in the inquiry proceedings and that the penalty of dismissal as imposed on the petitioner was completely justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 18. He submits the Disciplinary Authority as also the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the evidence which has come in the inquiry proceedings and that the penalty of dismissal as imposed on the petitioner was completely justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 18. Having considered the rival submissions on behalf of the parties, the issue which falls for consideration in the present petition is as to whether the order of dismissal from the service as imposed on the petitioner and confirmed by the Tribunal on the reasoning as detailed in the judgment and order of the Tribunal calls for any interference of this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution. 19. It is well settled that the powers of judicial review in disciplinary matters is very limited. The exercise of powers of judicial review in these matters would not contemplate re-appreciation of evidence so as to disturb the findings of facts and substitute the same. So also on the same set of facts it is not permissible to reach a different conclusion then the one reached by the disciplinary authority only because such different conclusion is a possible one. Hence the only scope in the present proceedings would be to consider whether there is any perversity or ex-facie illegality in the finding and conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. Adverting to this settled principle of law, we examine the present case. 20. Two charges viz. Charge no.IV and Charge no.V are held to be proved against the petitioner. Under Charge no.IV it is alleged that the petitioner had accepted sum of Rs.2295/-from Shri.Girivanavasi Pragati Mandal towards the cost of 510 kgs. Of T.G. seeds BARC supplied to the said Trust at the instance of the petitioner from Seizmic Array Station, BARC Gauribiadanur and that the said amount was appropriated by the petitioner. The Charge no.V was that the petitioner accepted a sum of Rs.500/-towards the cost of 100 kgs. T.G.seeds from Mr.C.A.Muthanna of Avoka Estate, South Coorg (Karnataka) supplied to him at the instance of the petitioner. It was stated that the said acts on the part of the petitioner exhibits lack of integrity and thereby contravened Rule 3(1)(i) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 21. T.G.seeds from Mr.C.A.Muthanna of Avoka Estate, South Coorg (Karnataka) supplied to him at the instance of the petitioner. It was stated that the said acts on the part of the petitioner exhibits lack of integrity and thereby contravened Rule 3(1)(i) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 21. To prove charge No.IV the Department examined Shri.D.D.Mehta who was working as an accountant with the Somaiya Group of Companies, Mumbai who were managing the Shri.Girivanavasi Pragati Mandal trust. He had stated before the Inquiry officer that Shri.K.J.Somaiya who was the founder of Somaiya Group of Companies was also the President of Shri. Giri Vanavasi Pragati Mandal, a charitable Trust. Shri.Mehta was looking after the accounts of the Trust and also was working as a Personal Assistant to Shri.K.J.Somaiya. This witness stated that Shri.V.B.Patil (brother in law of the petitioner) used to come to his office at times to deliver the messages of the petitioner to be delivered to Shri. Somaiya. The messages pertained about the programme of visit to the Nareshwadi Farm. This witness stated before the Inquiry officer that by a letter dated 6.2.1978, a copy of which was placed on record, was addressed by Shri.K.R.Subbaramu, Officer in Charge of BARC to Shri.Somaiya enclosing therewith bill dated 3.2.1978 towards freight charges for dispatch of 510 kgs of groundnut seeds on freight to pay basis. The freight charges were Rs.227.90/-. The documents pertaining to the removal of TG seeds to be transported by the Transport Company were placed on record and were identified. It was also stated from the documents issued by the Transport Company that the seeds were collected by the Somaiya Group after payment of freight charges to the transport company. This showed the delivery of 510 Kgs of seeds to the Somaiya group. This witness then stated before the Inquiry officer that on or about 18.2.1978 he had received a telephonic call from the petitioner informing that Shri.V.B.Patil would be coming to his office to receive payment for 510 kg groundnut seeds supplied. The witness stated that Shri.V.B.Patil would receive payment on behalf of Mr.K.V.Patil who was grower of the seeds supplied and that payment should be made in cash for which Shri.V.B.Patil would give necessary bill on behalf of one Shri.K.V.Patil. The witness stated that Shri.V.B.Patil would receive payment on behalf of Mr.K.V.Patil who was grower of the seeds supplied and that payment should be made in cash for which Shri.V.B.Patil would give necessary bill on behalf of one Shri.K.V.Patil. The witness stated that Shri.V.B.Patil had come to his office on 18.2.1978 to collect the payment and then when asked about the bill Shri.V.B.Patil told the witness that he had not brought the bill but he would himself give it on behalf of Shri.K.V.Patil. On this assurance the witness had put up a note to Shri.Somaiya to get sanction of Shri.Somaiya for the payment. Thereafter, the witness had asked Shri.V.B.Patil to give bill for Rs.2295/- towards cost of 510 kg of seeds received under the way bill (Exhibit S-13 before the Inquiry officer.). Accordingly, a bill was issued which was signed by Shri.V.B.Patil for Shri.K.H.Patil. On receipt of the bill, Shri.V.B.Patil asked the witness to come after 2 -3 days to collect payment. Accordingly, Shri.V.B.Patil came again on 2.12.1978 to collect payment on which date Mr.V.B.Patil was handed over bearer cheque of Rs.2295/-drawn on Mitsui Bank Ltd. The cheque was also placed on record of the Inquiry officer. The receipt of payment issued by Mr.V.B.Patil was also placed on record. The witness stated that receipt was written by Mr.V.B.Patil and signed in his presence. Thereafter, the cheque was encashed by Mr.V.B.Patil and money was received by him in that regard. Even the Bank Manager whose statement was recorded before the Inquiry Officer has stated in his deposition that the amount of the said cheque was paid on 22.2.1978 to the bearer of the cheque who was Shri.V.B.Patil. Pertinently, the petitioner did not cross examine the Bank Manager neither Mr.V.B.Patil was called as defence witness by the petitioner. It is, therefore, observed by the Inquiry officer in his report that what was clear was that the seeds were supplied at the behest of the petitioner from BARC. These seeds were to be distributed free of cost, however, the petitioner by making a call to Mr. Mehta sought an amount of Rs.2295/-in respect of said seeds, the dispatch of the seeds was proved, the receipt of money as per the instructions of the petitioner to be paid to Shri.V.B.Patil was also proved. These seeds were to be distributed free of cost, however, the petitioner by making a call to Mr. Mehta sought an amount of Rs.2295/-in respect of said seeds, the dispatch of the seeds was proved, the receipt of money as per the instructions of the petitioner to be paid to Shri.V.B.Patil was also proved. It is observed that all these circumstances clearly go to show that obviously it was the petitioner that the deposition of the bank on all the circumstances alongwith the deposition of the Bank Manager clearly shows that the petitioner does not disprove the receipt of money by Shri.V.B.Patil. The Inquiry officer has observed that the petitioner fraudulently induced Mr. Mehta to make payment to his brother-in-law Mr.V.B.Patil. It has also come on record of the Inquiry proceedings that the person who was named to be a seed grower viz. Mr.K.H.Patil on whose behalf Mr.V.B.Patil (brother in law of the petitioner) accepted the amount and whose address was given by Mr.V.B.Patil for receiving payment was a bogus person. This was revealed in a letter which was placed on record of Inquiry officer at Exhibit SW-5. The CBI had addressed this letter to Sarpanch of village Muddar, Karnataka State to ascertain as to whether there is anybody by name Mr.K.H.Patil. The endorsement of the postal authority on that letter which was returned undelivered shows that there was no village by name Muddar in Gauribindur Taluka and this shows that Mr.K.H.Patil or that village is non existing. The Inquiry officer in paragraph 17 of the Inquiry report has given factual analysis as to how this charge against the petitioner stands proved and that there can be no other conclusion drawn that the petitioner had received an amount of Rs.2295/-. The cumulative reading of all the events shows the linkage that the petitioner actually being beneficiary of the said amount. 22. As regards Charge No.V the same pertained to the petitioner accepting Rs.500/- towards the cost of 100 kg of TG seeds from Mr.C.A.Muthanna of Avoka Estate South Coorg (Karnataka) which was supplied to him at the instance of the petitioner. Mr. Muthanna who was a planter had visited SAS Gauribindur premises of BARC as he was interested in securing seeds to be used in his farm. Before the Inquiry officer Mr. Mr. Muthanna who was a planter had visited SAS Gauribindur premises of BARC as he was interested in securing seeds to be used in his farm. Before the Inquiry officer Mr. Muthanna had stated in the examination in chief that he was aware of TG seeds and had got familiar with them after consultation with Gauribindur Station Official viz. Shri.Subbaramu and his assistant Shri.R.P. Venkatchalaiah. Shri.Muthanna gave his visiting card containing his address by informing the said officials that if seeds are available he be informed. Accordingly a telegram was sent by Shri.Venkatchalaiah to Shri.Muthanna informing that the seeds are available at Rs.500/- per quintal. A copy of the telegram was placed on record of the Inquiry proceedings. Mr. Muthanna replied to Mr.Venkatchalaiah on 11.1.1978 informing that the 100 kgs of seeds which may be sent to him for which he makes payment as soon as the consignment reaches him. Mr. Muthanna received a letter dated 18.1.1978 from the petitioner advising him that the petitioner has arranged to send the seeds for which Shri.Muthanna should send Rs.500/- by demand draft towards the cost of the seeds. The demand draft be drawn in favour of Mr.S.A.Varur, Bombay. It was also advised that the draft alongwith the receipt for seeds may be sent to the residential address of the petitioner which was given in that letter. This letter of the petitioner which was unsigned was placed on record of the Inquiry proceedings. Accordingly Mr. Muthanna sent a demand draft of Rs.500/- to the petitioner drawn in favour of Mr.Varur. Mr. Muthanna received 100 kgs of seeds for which Rs.500/- was given as per the way bill which was signed by Shri.Muthanna. The demand draft purchased in the name of Mr.Varur was sent to the petitioner. The department’s witness Mr.Venkatchalaiha had before the Enquiry officer (Exhibit S-60 of the enquiry proceedings), that in January, 1978 the petitioner had come to Gauribindur and told him that Shri. Muthanna was interested in getting TG seeds and that the petitioner had asked Mr.Venkatchalaiha to inform Mr. Muthanna by telegram that the seeds were available at Rs.500/-per quintal. Mr.Venkatchalaiha stated that the text of the telegraphic message to be sent to Mr. Muthana was written in the handwriting of the petitioner. A draft of that telegram was placed on record of the Inquiry proceedings. Muthanna by telegram that the seeds were available at Rs.500/-per quintal. Mr.Venkatchalaiha stated that the text of the telegraphic message to be sent to Mr. Muthana was written in the handwriting of the petitioner. A draft of that telegram was placed on record of the Inquiry proceedings. Pertinently, the petitioner admitted that the text of the telegram was written in his handwriting. This telegram as prepared by the petitioner was sent by Shri.Venkatchalaiha through phonogram and according the supply of seeds had taken place. It is interesting to note that the demand draft was encashed by depositing the same in the bank account of Mr.Varur which was in Veer Sewa Urban Co-operative Bank. The Branch Manager of the said bank was examined before the Inquiry officer, who deposed about deposit of demand draft that the same was cleared on 3.2.1978. When the draft was deposited the balance in the account was Rs.8.05/-only and after the credit of the said amount of Rs.500/- an amount of Rs.15/- was withdrawn from that account by self withdrawal and thereafter an amount of Rs.485/-was withdrawn by self withdrawal on 6.2.1978. This position was confirmed by Shri. S.A. Varur that exact amount of Rs.500/- was withdrawn. The Inquiry officer has observed that it is evident that instruction for supply of seeds were given by AO-2 Shri.Venkatchalaiha, following which Mr.Venkatchalaiha had sent a telegram on the basis of the message recorded by the petitioner to Shri.Muthanna indicating cost of Rs.500/- per quintal. The seeds were accordingly sent to Mr. Muthanna for which Shri.Muthanna had send a demand draft of Rs.500/-as per the petitioner's instructions. Mr. Muthanna has deposed that he had forwarded the draft to the petitioner as per the instructions contained in the letter which appears to have been received by the petitioner at his residence as per Shri.Muthanna's deposition. Shri.Varur has stated in his cross examination that he has deposited this draft in his own account and Mr. Muthanna had sent this draft in his favour but the draft was actually sent to the petitioner. In re-examination Mr.Varur has stated that he has received a draft from the petitioner and that he does not know why Mr. Muthanna has sent draft in his name. The Inquiry Officer has observed that it was thus seen that the draft was sent by Mr. In re-examination Mr.Varur has stated that he has received a draft from the petitioner and that he does not know why Mr. Muthanna has sent draft in his name. The Inquiry Officer has observed that it was thus seen that the draft was sent by Mr. Muthanna to the petitioner who gave it to Mr.Varur who admitted that he has deposited the same in his account. It is recorded that all this clearly showed that the unsigned letter (Ex.S-75 of the Inquiry proceedings) could have been sent by the petitioner alone. In fact the deposition of Shri.Varur was clearly in the nature of implicating the petitioner to the extent it was stated that he had deposited the demand draft in his bank account as the Petitioner had told him that he has received that amount from the party whom he had supplied the seeds and that the petitioner being a Government Servant could not accept that payment officially. The amount tallied with the amount as stated in the draft telegram as written at the instance of the petitioner by Shri. Venkatchaliah. Mr.Varur stated in his statement that he knew the petitioner for over 10 years because of his association with Housing Society. Shri.Varur in fact was an employee of Premier Automobile, Mumbai. In regard to this charge on the basis of this evidence which had come on record of the inquiry proceedings, the Inquiry Officer has made detail analysis of entire factual position in paragraph 24 of the Inquiry Report in reaching to the conclusion that the charge against the petitioner stands proved from the circumstances and on the basis of preponderance of probability. 23. The Tribunal in its exhaustive judgment has considered the evidence which has come on record of the Inquiry Proceedings. The Tribunal has also taken into consideration that the instruction was given by the petitioner in draft telegram through Shri. Venkatchalaiha to Shri. Muthanna was initially in the handwriting of the petitioner as the record of the inquiry proceedings. The witnesses were acquainted with the handwriting of the petitioner and further this was also corroborated by the handwriting expert Mr.S.E. Lohiya who was the witness of the department and who stated that the said draft telegram was in the handwriting of the petitioner, which was revealed from taking a specimen handwriting of the petitioner and same was compared with that of the telegram. The Tribunal has also observed that this fact was admitted by the petitioner in his defence brief that the document was written by him. 24. Having considered the aforesaid fact position as emerged in the enquiry proceedings, we find that there is no merit in any of the submissions as made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended there was no evidence against the petitioner to substantiate the charge and therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. This submission on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted and deserves to be rejected. From the evidence which has come on record of the inquiry proceedings, it speaks quite clearly that the petitioner was not only the beneficiary of the said amounts but actually has received the amounts of Rs.2295/- and Rs.500/- as mentioned in charge nos.IV and V. The circumstances to support this are sufficiently present on record of the enquiry proceedings and could not have been overlooked. The test of preponderance of probability is applicable to departmental proceedings and it is not the test of proof beyond the reasonable doubt as necessary in the criminal proceedings. The law in this regard is well settled. Considered from any perspective the learned Counsel for the petitioner is therefore is not justified in urging that the present case is a case of no evidence. 25. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gyan Chand Chattar, (2009)12 Supreme Court Cases 78 to contend that the facts of the present case are similar to the facts in the case as falling for considering in this judgment of the Supreme Court. He placed reliance on paragraphs 20, 21 and 36 of the judgment to contend that on hearsay evidence a person cannot be punished. He submits that the charge against the petitioner was that of corruption as clear from the reading of Charge nos. IV and V and was required to be proved to the hilt as it brings civil and criminal consequences upon the employee concerned. He submits that the charge against the petitioner was that of corruption as clear from the reading of Charge nos. IV and V and was required to be proved to the hilt as it brings civil and criminal consequences upon the employee concerned. He submits that the following observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 21 are clearly applicable in the facts of the present, which reads as under:- “Such a serious charge of corruption requires to be dealt hilt as it brings civil and criminal consequences upon the employee concerned. He will be liable to prosecute and also liable to suffer severe penalty awardable in such cases, therefore, such a grave charge of quasi criminal nature was required to be proved beyond any shadow of doubt as to the hilt. It cannot be proved on mere probability.” We do not agree with this contention on behalf of the petitioner. The facts in Gyan Chand Chattar's case were quite different as the charge in respect of the delinquent employee asking for 1% commission for making payment of pay and allowances was held to be vague. It was observed by the Supreme Court in paragraph 20 of the judgment that as regards the said charge the learned Single Judge has appreciated the evidence of all the witnesses examined in that regard and had come to the conclusion that not a single person had deposed before the Inquiry officer that the delinquent – employee had asked any person to pay 1% commission for making payment of their allowance. It was based on hearsay statement. In fact the witnesses had stated that this could be the motive / reason for not making payment. In this context the Supreme Court had made observations in paragraph 21 of its judgment (supra) in holding that serious charge of corruption required was to be proved to the hilt as it brings civil and criminal consequences upon the employee concerned. In fact in paragraph 37 of the Judgment it was held that Charge no.6 was totally vague and no inquiry should be conducted against the delinquent on such charge. The submission on behalf of the petitioner on the basis of this judgment of the Supreme Court are therefore of no avail in the facts of the present case. In the present case Charge nos.IV and V were not ambiguous and were clear. The submission on behalf of the petitioner on the basis of this judgment of the Supreme Court are therefore of no avail in the facts of the present case. In the present case Charge nos.IV and V were not ambiguous and were clear. The facts and circumstances as established on evidence as also corroborated by the petitioner's own statements clearly and unequivocally demonstrated that the petitioner was the only beneficiary of the said amounts. In fact the evidence does not lead to any other conclusion. If that to be the position, then, by virtue of the well established test of preponderance of probability the respondents were justified in imposing punishment of dismissal against the petitioner. 26. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Case “Ishwar Chandra Jayaswal Vs. Union of India & Ors., ((2014)2 Supreme Court Cases 748)”, to contend that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate and hence calls for interference of this Court. In our opinion, the reliance on this decision of the Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioner is wholly misplaced in the facts of the present case. The charges which stand proved against the petitioner of receiving illegal gratification were serious. Once it is held that the charges of such gravity are proved, the doctrine of proportionality cannot be applied. In any event, considering the gravity of the charges and the punishment awarded, it cannot be said that the punishment is totally irrational or is outrageously disproportionate so as to shock the conscience of the Court. In the facts of the present case, there is no justification so as to displace and substitute the conclusion of the Disciplinary Authority on the quantum of the punishment, in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, reject this submission made on behalf of the petitioner. 27. Having carefully examined the facts we cannot persuade ourselves to agree with the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner that the present case is a case of no evidence. We have noted that the evidence on record of the enquiry proceedings was sufficient to infer the Petitioner to be the beneficiary of the amounts as mentioned in the charges levelled against him. We have noted that the evidence on record of the enquiry proceedings was sufficient to infer the Petitioner to be the beneficiary of the amounts as mentioned in the charges levelled against him. Further there is nothing on record which could give any credence to the allegation of the petitioner that it was a case of victimization at the hands of Shri. N.S.Rao. The findings of the enquiry officer are on the basis of evidence. Applying the test of preponderance of probability it cannot be said on the basis of material which has come on record of the enquiry proceedings that the charges against the petitioner are not proved. 28. Before parting we may note that the petitioner had good credentials and a meritorious record of public service which could have gone a long way to benefit the people at large particularly working in an organization like the BARC, however his own actions in the discharge of the duties of a public office as held to be proved and rightly so has brought him to such undesirable position. We are not exceptions not to be pained by this. 29. After taking into consideration the material on record, the findings of the enquiry report we do not find that there is any perversity or any illegality in the findings as recorded by the Tribunal, so as to warrant interfere in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 30. In view of the foregoing discussions the Writ Petition fails and is rejected. Rule is accordingly discharged. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.