1. Disciplinary proceedings against a police officer for abuse of official position and corrupt motives under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 710
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.R.Babu : Sujata V.Manohar
Government Of A.P.
Versus
P.Posetty
Case No. : 8926 of 1994
Date of Decision : 7/29/98
Abuse of official position actuated by corrupt motives constitutes misconduct under service rules, as it violates the requirement for government employees to maintain absolute integrity and propriety, thereby falling within the jurisdiction of the designated disciplinary tribunal.
Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960 - Section 4 - Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1961 - Rule 2(b) - Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1964 - Rule 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3) - Misconduct - Jurisdiction of Tribunal - Abuse of official position actuated by corrupt motives amounts to violation of conduct rules requiring absolute integrity, discipline, and propriety - Such actions constitute misconduct within the meaning of the rules, and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to enquire into such charges. (Paras 7, 8)
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Effect of promotion - Promotion granted on the basis of an order quashing disciplinary proceedings - If the order quashing the proceedings is set aside, the government is entitled to proceed further with the disciplinary action in accordance with law. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
A government employee serving as a police officer was accused of illegal detention and torture of persons for corrupt motives. The case was referred to a disciplinary tribunal which found the charges of abuse of official position proved. Following a show-cause notice for dismissal, the employee challenged the proceedings before the state administrative tribunal. The state administrative tribunal held that while a reasonable opportunity to be heard was provided, the disciplinary tribunal lacked jurisdiction to enquire into the specific allegations.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the charges of abuse of official position and corrupt motives clearly violate the conduct rules requiring employees to maintain absolute integrity and behave in a manner not unbecoming of their position. Consequently, such actions constitute misconduct, and the disciplinary tribunal had the jurisdiction to enquire into the charges.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary tribunal had the jurisdiction to enquire into allegations of abuse of official position actuated by corrupt motives.
Ratio Decidendi: Since the conduct rules mandate that every government employee maintain absolute integrity and avoid behavior derogatory to the prestige of the government, any abuse of official position for corrupt motives constitutes a wilful contravention of these rules, thereby falling under the definition of misconduct and within the jurisdiction of the disciplinary tribunal.
Result: Appeal allowed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the disciplinary tribunal lacked jurisdiction to enquire into allegations of abuse of official position and whether subsequent promotion bars continuation of proceedings. (Para 4 , 6 , 9 )
3. Abuse of official position actuated by corrupt motives violates conduct rules regarding integrity and propriety, thereby granting the disciplinary tribunal jurisdiction to enquire. (Para 7 , 8 )
4. Acts violating civil services conduct rules regarding integrity and propriety constitute misconduct, falling within the jurisdiction of the disciplinary tribunal. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Appeal allowed; order of the State Administrative Tribunal set aside; government permitted to proceed with disciplinary proceedings. (Para 8 , 9 )
6. Does the Disciplinary Tribunal have jurisdiction to enquire into charges of abuse of official position for corrupt motives?
Yes. Such actions violate civil services conduct rules requiring integrity, discipline, and propriety, which constitutes misconduct under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1961. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. Does the promotion of an employee after the quashing of disciplinary proceedings bar the government from continuing such proceedings?
No. If the promotion occurred because the proceedings were wrongly quashed, the government is entitled to proceed further with the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law. (Para 9 )
(1) DELAY condoned.
(2) THE respondent was working as a Sub-Inspector of Police at Togta Police Station in Medak District of the State of Andhra Pradesh from 1975 to 1977. There were certain allegations of illegal detention of certain persons in police custody, their torture etc. by the respondent for corrupt motives. On being satisfied that a prima facie case against the respondent was made out, the case of the respondent was referred to the Tribunal constituted under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960. The Tribunal framed the following charge against the respondent:
"That you, while working as SI of Police, Togta, from 1975 to 1977, in abuse of your official position, and actuated by corrupt motives, harassed S/Shri S. Bal Reddy, Janki Sathaiah, Kambam Bal Reddy, Kambam, Lakshmi Reddy, Gadila Malla Reddy, Pogula Rami Reddy and Kambam Veera Malla Reddy by keeping them in illegal police custody and thereby you are guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the rules framed under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960."
(3) AFTER enquiry the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the charge of abuse of official position actuated by corrupt motives was proved against the respondent. The Tribunal sent a report dated 10-12-1981 to the State Government. The State Government thereupon served a second show-cause notice dated 1-4-1982 on the respondent asking him to show cause why the punishment of dismissal from service should not be imposed on him. On receipt of the show-cause notice the respondent filed a proceeding before the Andhra Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal challenging the show-cause notice.
(4) THE respondent challenged the second show-cause notice on two grounds: (7) the respondent was denied a reasonable opportunity to be heard in the course of the disciplinary proceedings against him by the Tribunal; and (2) the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to enquire into the allegation in question against the respondent. The State Administrative Tribunal has decided the first question against the respondent holding that a reasonable opportunity had been given to the respondent of being heard in the disciplinary proceedings. On the second question, however, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings had no jurisdiction to enquire into the allegation in question.
(5) THE findings of the State Administrative Tribunal were not accepted by the State which annulled the order of the State Administrative Tribunal under Article 371-D(5) of the Constitution. The said provision in the Constitution, however, was struck down by this Court in the case of P. Sambamurthy v. State of A.P. As a result, the order of the Tribunal revived.
(6) IN the present appeal the State has challenged the finding of the State Administrative Tribunal to the effect that the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings had no jurisdiction to enquire into the allegations in question.
(7) UNDER Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960 the Government shall refer to the Tribunal for enquiry and report such cases as may be prescribed of allegations of misconduct on the part of the government servants. Misconduct is defined in the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1961 in Rule 2(b). Under Rule 2(b) any wilful contravention of rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to such service and post until provision in that behalf is made, would be a misconduct. Such rules are framed by the State of Andhra Pradesh being the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1964 which apply to the respondent also. Rule 3 sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) are as follows:
"3. (1) Every government employee shall be devot
