IMPORTANT POINT
The Administrative Tribunal cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on the finding of the enquiry authority indisciplinary proceedings.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW-Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960-Section 4 as amended by 1993 Act-Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules 1989-Rule 3-Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964-Removal from service-Respondent working as Deputy Director, Municipal Administration-Anti Corruption Department Bureau registered a case with regard to disproportionate assets possessed by respondent-Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings submitted its report finding respondent guilty-Government on consideration of entire matter passed order removing respondent from service-On challenge, Tribunal set aside disciplinary orders of the Government-Writ Petition-Whether the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings was competent to examine the case-(Yes)-Whether order of Administrative Tribunal interfering with order of the TDP is warranted-(No).
       Held : The possession of assets disproportionate to the known source of income is a misconduct under the Conduct Rules as the delinquent officer was being charge-sheeted for violation of Conduct Rules made under the provision of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. We have already reproduced the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Rules, 1960 which defined misconduct under Rule 2(b). The finding of the Administrative Tribunal that the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings has no jurisdiction to interfere into the charge which falls under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is not correct. In our view, the charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act is a graver offence than the routine misconduct contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Conduct Rules. A grave misconduct does not cease to be a misconduct because it is grave. The Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings in our view is competent to examine the case. The TDP have examined 57 witnesses on the prosecution side and 13 defence witnesses and have marked 129 exhibits for the prosecution which were examined by the Tribunal together with 81 defence exhibits. A reading of the entire proceedings of the TDP would show that the TDP has considered the entire material placed before it and considered them in the proper perspective. (Para 17)
       The order of the Administrative Tribunal interfering with the well-considered order of the TDP is unwarranted. The APAT cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on the finding of the enquiry authority in disciplinary proceedings. Where there is some relevant material which the disciplinary authority has accepted and which material reasonably supported the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority, it is not the function of the APAT to review the same and reach a different conclusion. So, it is well settled that if the findings recorded by the Tribunals or of the disciplinary authorities, are found to be perverse, which are not based on the legal evidence, then the administrative tribunal or the court is empowered to treat such flaw as a legal flaw and quash the impugned action. In the instant case, the fact finding authority has based its findings on legally permissible substantive evidence. And, therefore, such a finding on fact based on substantive evidence is not permissible to be interfered with. In our opinion, the Administrative Tribunal cannot ignore the findings of the disciplinary authority or the tribunals. The truth or otherwise of the charge, is a matter of the disciplinary authority to go into. The finding of the court or tribunal under judicial review which, in our opinion, cannot extend to the re-examination of all evidence to decide the correctness of the charge. In our view, the Administrative Tribunal cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on finding of the enquiry authority in disciplinary proceedings. This court, time and again, categorically stated that court should not interfere with the quantum of punishment where there is some relevant material which the disciplinary authority has accepted and which material has reasonable supports, the conclusion reached by the Disciplinary Tribunal, it is not the function of the Administrative Tribunal to review the same and reach a different finding than that of the disciplinary authority. (Paras 24 and 25)

JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.-The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and The Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad are the appellants in this appeal. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 14358 of 2001 confirming the judgment and order dated 22.2.2001 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad allowing the Original Application No. 6755 of 2000 filed by the respondent herein and setting aside the order issued by the appellant in G.O.Ms. No. 520 Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department dated 28.10.2000.

2. The background facts leading to the filing of this appeal be noted briefly and they are as follows:

The respondent herein at the relevant time was working as Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning in the Municipal Administration Department at Hyderabad. The Anti-Corruption Department Bureau registered a case on 30.9.1992 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with regard to the disproportionate assets possessed by the respondent herein and investigated into the case. The Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Government of Andhra Pradesh, submitted a report to the Government with regard to the disproportionate assets possessed by the respondent herein and recommended to refer the case to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Hyderabad for enquiry against the charged officer into the allegations of acquisition of assets disproportionate to the known sources of his income and also the violation of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and to submit a report to the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Tribunal after conducting thorough inquiry and giving full opportunity to the parties submitted its report on 2.6.1997 finding the respondent M. Adinarayana guilty under both the charges framed against him. The Government after considering the report of the Tribunal by Memo No. 1593/82/93-6 MA & UD dated 24.9.1997 issued a show cause notice to the respondent herein calling for his explanation to the findings given by the Tribunal.

3. The respondent instead of giving his explanation to the show cause notice, filed O.A.No. 7490 of 1997 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal challenging the show cause notice. The same was dismissed by its order dated 27.4.1998. The High Court disposed of the Writ Petition and reserved liberty to the charged officer to raise all objections as to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as other issues before the Government in response to the show cause notice dated 24.9.1997. The Government once again issued a Memo to the respondent herein to submit his explanation. The respondent submitted his explanation initially with regard to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to enquire into the charge No.1 and thereafter on 31.3.1999, submitted his reply with respect to the report of the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings. The Government on consideration of the entire matter and explanation given by the respondent, issued orders in G.O.Ms.No. 520-MA & UD dated 28.10.2000 removing the respondent herein from service (Annexure-P/1). The respondent filed O.A. No. 6755/2000 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal challenging the above order of the Government. He contended that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to enquire into Charge-I and Charge-II which was defective in nature and, accordingly, sought to quash the orders of the Government. The appellant filed a detailed Counter Affidavit before the Tribunal explaining the position. The Tribunal by its order dated 22.2.2001 set aside the disciplinary orders of the Government. The Government thereupon filed Writ Petition No. 14358 of 2001 before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court by order dated 6.6.2002 dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 1256

IMPORTANT POINTThe Administrative Tribunal cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on the finding of the enquiry authority indisciplinary proceedings.

IMPORTANT POINT
The Administrative Tribunal cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on the finding of the enquiry authority indisciplinary proceedings.