SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B P Jeevan Reddy, Suhas C Sen
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS
VERSUS
K. GURUSWAMY, RESPONDENT.
Civil Appeal No. ... of 1995 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 446 of 1995), decided on March 23, 1995.
Corruption - Dismissal of Government Employee - Interpretation of Provisions
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a Sales Tax Officer, was convicted for corruption and sentenced to imprisonment. He was subsequently dismissed from service based on the conviction and the conduct leading to it.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the respondent was not given ample opportunity to show cause against the dismissal, but held that in cases of corruption, dismissal is the appropriate punishment and no lesser punishment can be contemplated.
Issues: The issue was whether the respondent was given sufficient opportunity to show cause against the dismissal and whether dismissal was the appropriate punishment for the corruption conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that in cases of corruption, there can be nothing short of dismissal as the appropriate punishment, and the authority was not obligated to consider any lesser punishment in such cases.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment of the Tribunal was set aside, and the order of dismissal was restored.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The respondent was a Sales Tax Officer. He was prosecuted for offences under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as well as Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court found him guilty under the provisions and sentenced him to imprisonment by its order dated 7-9-1976. On 31-10-1978, a notice was issued to the respondent by the State asking him to show cause why he should not be dismissed on the basis of the conduct which led to his conviction aforesaid. The respondent was dismissed on 27-11-1978 with reference to Rule 17(c) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services Rules which is evidently referable to proviso (a) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Subsequently, on 10-12-1981, the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondent against his conviction and sentence. The special leave petition filed by him has also been dismissed. After all this was over, the respondent approached the High Court by way of a writ petition questioning the order of his dismissal which was transferred to the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal has set aside the said dismissal order on the ground that no ample opportunity was given to the respondent to show cause against the action proposed. The Tribunal holds that though the respondent did not show cause pursuant to the show-cause notice, yet it was obligatory upon the authority to consider the appropriate punishment called for in the facts and circumstances of the case. In our opinion, the said principle can make no difference in the facts of this case. Here, the respondent has been convicted for corruption and there can be nothing short of dismissal in such cases. No other lesser punishment can be contemplated in such cases.
3. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and the order of dismissal is restored. No costs.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.