Back
1996(5) Supreme 646
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.C. Agrawal and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu -Appellant
versus
D. Subramanyan Rajadevan -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5263 of 1993
Decided on 9-7-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : A. Mariarputham, Advocate for M/s. Arputham, Aruna & Co.
For the Respondent : R. Venkataramani, T.L. Roy and Satya Mitra Garg, Advocates.
Held : Rule 8 of the Disciplinary Proceedings Rules, in clear terms, excludes the operation of Rule 17 while conducting inquiries in cases of corruption and also in cases of corruption combined with other charges. The words "Notwithstanading anything contained in Rule 17" are categorical and very clearly disclose the intention of the Rule-making authority that while conducting inquiries in cases of corruption and also in cases of corruption combined with other charges the procedure prescribed in Rule 8 has to be followed and not the procedure prescribed in Rule 17 of the Civil Service Rules. As stated earlier, the Disciplinary Proceedings Rules are special rules in the matter of holding disciplinary proceedings against Government servants in cases of corruption. It was desired by the Government that such cases should be enquired into by a special Tribunal consisting of a judicial officer of the rank of District and Sessions Judge. The findings and recommendations of the Tribunal ordinarily have to be accepted by the Government and if it wants to take a different decision it has to comply with the requirements of Rule 11. Even in regard to the passing of final orders in cases enquired into by the Tribunal the special procedure contained in Rule 10 of the Disciplinary Rules has to be followed, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Rules. Clause (d) of Rule 8 of the Disciplinary Proceedings Rules also makes the position clear when it provides that the positions of the Civil Service Rules shall apply in regard to the procedure to be followed in cases other than those of corruption and in regarn to any other matter for which no specific provision has been made in the Disciplinary Proceedings Rules. (Para 6)
Futher held : There is no such principle of natural justice that before holding a regular departmental enquiry the disciplinary authority itself should hold a preliminary enquiry by first drawing up a charge memo and then calling for the written statement of defence before taking a decision to hold a regular departmental enquiry. (Para 7)
(ii) Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955-Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules-Nature and scope-Civil Service Rules are general rules applicable in all types of cases-Disciplinary Proceedings Rules are special rules applicable in cases of corruption by Government servants-Both the Rules have equal force of law.
Held : A comparison of the Civil Service Rules and Disciplinary Proceedings Rules clearly reveals that the Civil Service Rules are general rules applicable in all types of cases whereas the Disciplinary Proceedings Rules are special rules applicable in cases of corruption by Government servants and in respect of all those disciplinary cases in which the Government proposes to revise the original orders passed on the charges of corruption. As both the rules have been framed in exercise of powers conferred on the Government by Article 309 of the Constitution of India they have equal force of law. Therefore, the Tribunal was not right in holding that Rule 8 of the Disciplinary Proceedings Rules being a procedural rule must give way to Rule 17(b) of the Civil Service Rules which is a substantive provision in regard to the functions and powers of the disciplinary authority. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that Rule 17(b) of the Civil Service Rules is also a procedural provision and not a substantive provision as regards the powers of the disciplinary authority. Rule 17 does not deal with the powers of the disciplinary authority to punish a delinquent Government servant, but only provides the procedure to be followed in a case where it is proposed to impose a penalty on such Government servant. The Tribunal has clearly misconstrued the nature and scope of Rule 17 of the Civil Service Rules. (Para 5)
JUDGMENT
Nanavati, J.-This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2587 of 1990.
2. Some complaints of corruption and other acts of misconduct by the respondent, during the period from 5.6.85 to 15.6.86, while serving as a Superintendent of Police, were received by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madras. The Directorate investigated those complaints and reported its findings to the Tamil Nadu Government. The Government after examining the records submitted to it by the Directorate decided to refer those cases to the Tribunal for Disciplinay Proceedings (hereiafter referred to as the Disciplinary Tribunal ) constituted under Rule 3 of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Disciplinary Proceedings Rules ) for enquiring into those cases. The Tribunal framed three charges on 21.11.89 and communicated the same to the respondent. Thereupon, the respondent approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Trinbunal ) challenging the charge memo framed against him on the grounds of delay, vagueness and breach of the requirements of Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Service Rules ). The grounds of delay and vagueness were not considered as sufficient by the Tribunal for quashing the charges but it was of the view that the charges were required to be formulated by the Disciplinary Authority as required by Rule 17 of t he Civil Service Rules after applying its mind to the record of the case and after recording the tentative decision to impose any of the penalties specified in Items (iv), (vi), (vii) and (viii) of the Rule 8 of the Civil Service Rules before referring the cases to the Tribunal for the purpose of holding an inquiry and as this was not done, the charges deserved to be quashed. The reasons given by the Tribunal for taking this view are as under :
"We would consider that the substantive provisions of Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules in regard to the functions and powers of the disciplinary authority cannot be taken away from such authority by the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1955, which relate only to the enquiry which is only a component of the proceedings under Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules as we have emphasised in our decision in O.A. Nos. 712 and 713 of 1990 dated 26.2.1991 wherein we have held as below :
Rule 17(b)(1) therefore requires that (1) there should be a decision that the facts and circumstances disclosed and the evidence in support thereof constituting the basis for the charge would justify one of the penalties specified therein if the charges are established after the enquiry into which the delinquent officer would have the opportunities as prescribed to put forward his defence (2) with refernce to the facts and circumstances disclosed and the evidence, the charge or charges should be formulated to be communicated to the person charged with a statement of allegations on which these charges are based and other circumstances which is proposed to be taken into consideration. (3) Consideration of the written statement of defence and a decision in regard to oral enquiry in the light of the written statement of defence, the request of the delinquent offricer for an oral enquiry or otherwise, consideration of the evidence in support of each charge to decide whether oral evidence is necessary if the delinquent has not asked for such enquiry. (4) The conduct of the enquiry and the preparation of the report of the enquiry. The enquiry can be conducted by the disciplinary authority or by any authority designated by him. None of these can be delegated except the functions of the Enq
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
