S. Muralee Krishna, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner who is the appellant in Appeal No.1 of 2004 before the Kerala University Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the ‘Tribunal’ for short), challenging the judgment dated 14.10.2004 passed by the Tribunal in the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the punishment imposed on her in a disciplinary proceeding by the 1st respondent Manager of Fathima Matha National College, Kollam.

2. The petitioner was a Senior Scale Lecturer in the Department of Hindi at Fathima Matha National College, Kollam. She was issued with memos on different occasions by the respondents alleging dereliction of duty. Ultimately, the respondents issued a consolidated memo containing 9 charges against the petitioner, containing all the allegations levelled in the different memos. Subsequently, an enquiry officer was appointed by the college to enquire about the charges levelled against the petitioner. After finalisation of the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted a report, finding the petitioner guilty of all the charges, except charge Nos. 7 and 8. Thereafter, the 1st respondent accepted the enquiry report by the proceedings dated 13.06.2003 and proposed a punishment of withholding three increments with cumulative effect from 01.03.2003 onwards. After considering the written representation submitted by the petitioner, by the order dated 22.07.2003, the 1st respondent imposed on her a punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect from 01.03.2003. Challenging the order of punishment, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing an appeal under Section 60 of the Kerala University Act, 1974. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner produced Ext.A1 document and the respondents produced Ext.B1 document. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal, by the impugned judgment dated 14.10.2004, dismissed the appeal, however, with no costs. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition under Section 60(9) of the Kerala University Act, 1974.

3. On service of notice, though initially the respondents entered appearance in this revision petition, subsequently, there was no representation for the respondents in the consecutive hearing dates. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records submitted by the Tribunal.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submitted that the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated and culminated in violation of the statutory provisions. The memo of charges was not served to the petitioner. The charges levelled against the petitioner are very vague. Moreover, during the course of the enquiry, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross- examine the witnesses. These aspects were not properly considered by the Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal.

5. The interference of the Court in the matter of disciplinary proceedings is warranted if the disciplinary proceedings are conducted in violation of natural justice. In the instant case, the first appellate authority has already analysed the aforesaid contention of the petitioner and arrived at a finding against the said contention. It is trite that, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, the court need not interfere with the fact- finding of the original authority, unless the decision of the original authority is perverse, illegal, or suffering from material irregularity. In Nemi Chand Nalwaya [2011 (4) SCC 584], while considering the issue pertaining to the dismissal of the respondent who was working as a clerk in the appellant Bank for misappropriation of amount, the Apex Court held thus;

                  “6. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. Courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (vide B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, 1995 (6) SCC 749, Union of India v. G. Gunayuthan, 1997 (7) SCC 463, and Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana, 1999 (5) SCC 762, High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shahsi Kant S Patil, 2001 (1) SCC 416).

                  [Underline supplied]

6. From the materials placed on record, we notice that there were 9 charges levelled against the petitioner, in continuation of the different memos issued to her. Those charges are extracted below for easy understanding.

                  “1. On 13.08.2001 at about 9.30 a.m. the Head of the Department of Hindi had seen the signature of the delinquent in the Attendance Register, though she had not reached the Department at that time. The Management had every reason to believe that the delinquent herself had cause to forge her signature in the Register so as to make it appear that she was present in the department as about 9.30 a.m. itself, though she came to the department at about 9.55 a.m. Manipulation of college records and causing to forge the signature in an official register are very serious offences.

                  2. The Head of the Department had asked the delinquent whether she suspected any persons, but she had given only an evasive reply. The conduct of the delinquent fortifies the suspicion of the Management that she herself had caused to forge the signature. The nature of reply and her conduct clearly show that she knew the person who forged her signature and she had willfully suppressed that fact from being noticed by the management. There is absolutely no reason for somebody to affix the signature of the delinquent so as to help her unlawfully without her instigation.

                  3. The Head of the Department told the delinquent to retain the signature in fact with the specific idea to find out the culprit from the nature of the ink and style of writing. He then informed the custodian of the Attendance Register in the office about the unauthorized signature and he tried to intimate the matter to the Principal. But as the Principal was busy with admission works of students of the Degree class, the Head of the Department could not inform the matter. On 14.08.2001 when the Attendance Register was brought to the Department, the controversial signature was not seen in the Register and it was found scrubbed off by the blade or a similar sharp-edged tool, such that the space for signature got completely torn off. When the Head of the Department asked about it to the delinquent gave the following reply.

                  The above reply will clearly show that she herself had scrubbed off the controversial signature in violation of the specific direction of the Head of the Department with the dishonest intention of causing disappearance of evidence, which amounts to a criminal act. The delinquent knew very well that if the signature was not scrubbed off, the management could easily find out the actual culprit who forged the signature from the nature of the ink and style of writing. From the conduct of the delinquent, it can be clearly seen that she herself had done the mischief with the intention of evading disciplinary action.

                  4. When the Principal called for an explanation from her, she had stated that “the Head of the Department had erased the signature and advised her to affix her signature over the erased column.” The Head of the Department had denied the allegation. The act of the delinquent in attributing false serious allegations against the head of the Department, who is her superior officer, amounts to insubordination and she is liable to face the charge of insubordination also. The act of manipulating of college records in violation of the specific direction by the Head of the Department is clearly illegal and amounts to criminal offence.

                  5. On 20.08.2001, the delinquent did not sign the Attendance Register. The fact was noted by the Principal himself in register by marking ‘L’. It was subsequently found that the delinquent had unauthorizedly erased the ‘L’ mark and put her signature there. The act of the delinquent amounts to manipulation of records, which is a criminal offence.

                  6. When explanation was called for, the delinquent had stated that she had signed with the permission of the Head of the Department in good faith. When explanation was called for from the Head of the Department, he had stated that he had neither erased the ‘L’ marking made by the Principal not advised the delinquent to affix her signature over the erased column. Attributing false allegations against the Head of the Department who is her superior officer amounts to insubordination which attracts punishment envisaged by KSR.

7. After continuously committing illegality and irregularities, the delinquent always falsely puts blame over the Head of the Department. A Lecturer who is subordinate to the Head of the Department should obey the direction and should also respect him.

                  8. When explanation was called from the delinquent, she had directed terms to the Principal to treat the matter as closed as if all the above mentioned illegalities are of simple nature and the Principal had to treat the matter lightly. A subordinate is not expected to dictate terms to the Principal who is the head of the institution. The act of the delinquent is to be viewed seriously.

                  9. The delinquent had unauthorisedly availed leave on 29 October 200 and on the forenoon of the 30th October, 2001 and 31st October 2001. She had submitted the leave application only on 12.11.2001. She had again availed leave on 5th November 2001. But the leave application was submitted only on 19th November 2001. As per Part I KSR Rule III Appendix VII, an officer requiring casual leave should take orders of the head of his office for such absence. The delinquent had never obtained prior permission for availing such leave. It is a clear violation of the Kerala Service Rules.”

7. To enquire about these charges, an enquiry officer was appointed by the college. Before the enquiry officer, the Principal of the college was examined as MW1 and another witness was examined as MW2. From the side of the management M.1 to M.17 documents were marked. However, the petitioner did not produce any evidence from her side. After analysing the evidence adduced from the side of the management, the enquiry officer reached to a finding that the petitioner is guilty of all the charges alleged against her, except charge Nos. 7 and 8. According to the enquiry officer, the 7th charge is a repetition of the 6th charge and hence need not be answered. As far as the 8th charge is concerned, the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty.

8. The contention of the petitioner in this revision petition is that the enquiry proceedings were conducted in violation of the Kerala University First Statutes, and natural justice was denied to her by not permitting her to cross-examine the witnesses. But while going through the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, we notice that this contention was raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal also. In paragraphs 15 and 16, the Tribunal dealt with these contentions raised by the petitioner in detail and overruled those contentions. For easy reference, the aforesaid paragraphs are extracted herein below;

                  “15. The next contention is that the charges against the appellant are not specific. I have referred to the various memos served on the appellant, and finally the charges served on her. Her explanation shows that she fully understood the allegations. If she was vague in her answers, it was because she fully knew that what she did was wrong.

                  16. The appellant also contended that in conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer did not comply with the principles of natural justice. Further, no sufficient opportunity was given to her to defend her case statute 72 of the Kerala University first statutes prescribe the procedure for imposing a minor penalty. Statute 72 does not contemplate detailed enquiry. Yet an enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer has narrated in detail the various notices issued to the appellant and her response. It is true that the proceedings of enquiry is not produced. But there is nothing to discredit the details of proceedings referred to by the Enquiry Officer in his report. It is evident that on the days when the witness of the management was present, the appellant did not turn up. She was cunning enough to be present on the days on which the management witnesses was absent.Yet several notices were repeatedly given to the appellant. But she did not turn up and finally evidence was rесоrd in her absence. So more than sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant to defend her case and to adduce evidence. So the contention that the Enquiry Officer was not fair in conducting the enquiry is also liable to be rejected. After committing too much irregularities, irresponsible allegations are levelled against the superior officers. This reminds me of the cat that ate the rice, bit the wife of the Carpenter, yet grumbled.”

9. By referring to Statute 69 of the Kerala University First Statute, the Tribunal found that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is a minor punishment, and the management was too lenient in imposing the punishment. From reappreciating the findings arrived at by the Tribunal, with reference to the materials placed on record, we find no ground to hold that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence and materials placed on record or in other words, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is perverse, illegal or suffering from material irregularity, which warrants interference of this Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction.

                  In the result, this civil revision petition stands dismissed.