1. Misappropriation of foodgrains by a government accountant — disciplinary proceedings — imposition of penalty and recovery of loss — challenge before Administrative Tribunal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 772
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.R.Babu : Sujata V.Manohar
Commissioner Of Rural Development
Versus
A.S.Jagannathan
Case No. : 4617 of 1997
Date of Decision : 8/6/98
A Tribunal cannot substitute its own view on the quantum of punishment in disciplinary proceedings unless the penalty is arbitrary, perverse, or shocks the conscience. Recovery of pecuniary loss under service rules is permissible alongside other disciplinary penalties.
Headnote:(A) Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules - Rule 8 - Pension Rules - Rule 9(1)(b) - Disciplinary proceedings - Misappropriation of foodgrains - Recovery of pecuniary loss and stoppage of increments - Recovery of pecuniary loss caused by negligence or breach of orders is permissible under Rule 8, and recovery from pension is permissible under Rule 9(1)(b) of Pension Rules - Such recovery does not preclude the imposition of other punishments like withholding of increments (Para 5).
(B) Judicial Review - Scope of Tribunal's jurisdiction in disciplinary matters - Tribunal cannot interfere with findings of enquiry officer or punishment imposed by competent authority unless they are arbitrary or utterly perverse - Disciplinary authority is invested with discretion to impose appropriate punishment based on the magnitude or gravity of misconduct - Court or Tribunal cannot substitute its own conclusion on penalty unless the punishment shocks the conscience (Para 6).
Facts of the case:
A Block Level Accountant was found responsible for the misappropriation of foodgrains, having made unauthorized entries in the stock register. Following a disciplinary enquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of stoppage of increments for two years without cumulative effect and ordered the recovery of the pecuniary loss caused to the government from the employee's pay or retirement benefits. The period of suspension was treated as service without pay. The Tribunal modified the order by setting aside the stoppage of increments and directing payment of salary for the suspension period, holding that multiple punishments cannot be imposed for the same charge.
Findings of Court:
The disciplinary authority acted within its powers under the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and Pension Rules. The recovery of pecuniary loss is a permissible action and does not prevent the imposition of other penalties. The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting its own view on the punishment.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority and whether the recovery of pecuniary loss precludes the imposition of other penalties for the same misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The jurisdiction of a Tribunal to interfere with disciplinary matters is not equivalent to appellate jurisdiction. It cannot interfere with the punishment unless it is arbitrary, perverse, or shocks the conscience. The disciplinary authority has the discretion to determine the penalty based on the gravity of the misconduct.
Result: Appeal allowed and the impugned order of the tribunal is set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether multiple penalties, including recovery of pecuniary loss and stoppage of increments, can be imposed for the same set of charges. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Recovery of pecuniary loss under service and pension rules is distinct from disciplinary penalties; tribunals cannot substitute their own view on penalty unless it is perverse. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Tribunals exercising judicial review cannot interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by a competent disciplinary authority unless the penalty is arbitrary or shocks the conscience. (Para 6 )
5. Appeal allowed and the order of the Administrative Tribunal set aside. (Para 7 )
6. Can a disciplinary authority impose both a penalty and a recovery of pecuniary loss for the same misconduct?
Yes. Recovery of pecuniary loss caused by negligence or breach of orders is permissible under specific service and pension rules and is distinct from the imposition of a disciplinary penalty, such as the withholding of increments. (Para 5 )
7. To what extent can an Administrative Tribunal interfere with the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority?
The tribunal's jurisdiction is not appellate. It cannot interfere with findings or punishments unless they are arbitrary, utterly perverse, or shock the conscience of the court; it cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on the penalty. (Para 6 )
8. Is the disciplinary authority entitled to decide the treatment of a suspension period pending enquiry?
Yes, the disciplinary authority is entitled to pass orders relating to the suspension period pending enquiry as part of the final order. (Para 5 )
(1) THE respondent was working as a Block Level Accountant in 1986 in Valangaiman. He was transferred to Kumbakonam Block and was relieved in the afternoon of 8/7/1986.
(2) DURING the period when the respondent was working as a Block Level Accountant at Valangaiman, it was found that there was shortage in the stocks of wheat and rice. There was a loss of 30 metric tons of wheat and 3 metric tons of rice valued at Rs 51,300.00. Thereupon, initially the Block Development Officer issued orders for recovery of the amount from the respondent. The District Collector set aside the order of the Block Development Officer and directed him to pass appropriate orders after holding a proper enquiry. On 18/9/1988, the respondent was placed under suspension pending enquiry. He was served with a charge-sheet containing three charges. The first charge was related to his making unauthorised entries of deduction in the stock register on various dates relating to different quantities of foodgrains as specified in the charge. The second charge was that he was responsible for a large-scale misappropriation of foodstock in his custody and the third charge was that by his above action, he had caused loss to the government. After hearing the respondent and examining the witnesses, the enquiry officer submitted a report dated 13/11/1989 holding the respondent guilty of the charges. The respondent was thereupon given a further hearing by the District Collector while considering the enquiry officers report. The respondent was also given an opportunity to make a epresentation against the findings in the enquiry officers report. After examining his representation, the disciplinary authority, namely, the District Collector, passed a final order dated 4/6/1991. The disciplinary authority, after examining the report of the enquiry officer and considering the respondents representation, has come to the conclusion that various quantities of wheat and rice were deducted from the stock register by the respondent by making entries in his own handwriting unauthorisedly on various dates specified therein and staling in his own handwriting that damage was caused due to rats and heavy rain. This defence of the respondent has been disbelieved by the enquiry officer as well as by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority has held that all the charges have been proved against the respondent.
(3) THEREAFTER in his order, the disciplinary authority has observed that as the delinquent is due to retire very soon from service on 30/6/1991, a lenient view is taken and a stoppage of increments for two years without cumulative effect is ordered for gross negligence and unauthorised entries in the stock registeR.The disciplinary authority has also directed that the loss of Rs 51,300.00 which has been caused by misappropriation of the stock of foodgrains be recovered in one lump sum from the respondent before his retirement on superannuation failing which the entire amount will be recovered from his retirement benefits. The period of suspension was also directed to be treated as service period but without pay.
(4) THE appeal of the respondent was dismissed. The respondent retired on 30/6/1991. He, thereafter, in December 1992, filed an application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative tribunal challenging the above orders. The tribunal set aside the order of the disciplinary authority dated 4/6/1991 insofar as it inflicted the punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. The tribunal also directed the appellant to pay the respondents salary for the period of suspension. It thus modified the punishment imposed.
(5) THE tribunal clearly had no jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority under the order of 4/6/19911. The tribunal has purported to pass the order on the ground that three punishments cannot be imposed for the same charge. Now, the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Cla
