Government Of T. N. vs Rajapandian - 1994 Supreme(SC) 1058

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1994 Supreme(SC) 1058

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KULDIP SINGH AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.
Govt. of T.N. and another, Appellants
Versus
Rajapandian, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 6964 of 1994 (arising out of S.L.P.(C)No. 15254 of 1992)
Decided on 24-10-1994.
Advocates appeared
Mrs. Aruna Mathur, Advocate, for Appellants; Mr. S.Srinivasan, Advocate, for Respondent.
From the Judgment and Order of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras in T. A. No. 1256 of 1989, D/-4-9-1991.

Advocates:
ARUNA MATHUR, S.SRINIVASA VARMA

Headnote:
Constitution Of India,1950 - Article 309 - Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section, 420 - Punishment - Quash -Appeal herein joined service as Sub-Inspector Police in State of Tamil Nadu- He was promoted to post Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings Madras held inquiry against him on three charges out of five framed against him- In departmental inquiry Tribunal found three charges proved against respondent and as a consequence he was dismissed from service by order - He challenged order by way of writ petition before Madras High Court- Writ petition was subsequently transferred Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal- Administrative Tribunal by its order allowed transfer petition and set aside dismissal order- This appeal by State Tamil Nadu is against order of Administrative Tribunal Administrative Tribunal fell into patent error in reappreciating and going into sufficiency of evidence- It has been authoritatively settled by string of authorities of this Court that Administrative Tribunal cannot sit as a Court of Appeal over a decision based on findings of inquiring authority in disciplinary proceedings- Where is some relevant material which disciplinary authority has accepted and which material reasonably support conclusion reached by disciplinary authority it is not function of Administrative Tribunal to review same and reach different finding than that of disciplinary authority- Administrative Tribunal in this case has found no fault with proceedings by inquiring authority- It has quashed dismissal order by evidence and reaching a finding different than that of inquiring authority –Held, standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt- If inference was a person likely to have official dealings with respondent was one which reasonable person would draw from proved facts of case High Court cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on it- Where re are some relevant materials which authority has accepted and which materials may reasonably support conclusion that officer is guilty it is not function High Court exercising its jurisdiction review materials and to arrive an independent finding on materials- If enquiry has been properly question of adequacy or reliability of evidence cannot be canvassed before High Court must unequivocally state that jurisdiction Tribunal interfere with disciplinary matters for punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction- Tribunal cannot interfere with finding Inquiry Officer or competent authority where y are not arbitrary or utterly perverse- It is appropriate to remember that power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on competent authority either by an Act of Legislature or rules made under proviso to Article Constitution- If has been an enquiry consistent with rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice what punishment would meet ends of justice is a matter exclusively within jurisdiction of competent authority- If penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on proved misconduct Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that authority - Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT

KULDIP SINGH, J.:- Delay condoned.

2. Special leave granted.

3. A. Rajapandian, respondent in the appeal herein, joined service as Sub-Inspector, Police in the State of Tamil Nadu. He was promoted to the post of Inspector in the year 1977. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Madras, held inquiry against him on three charges out of five framed against him. In the departmental inquiry the Tribunal found the three charges proved against the respondent and as a consequence he was dismissed from service by the order dated February 7, 1984. He challenged the order by way of writ petition before the Madras High Court. The writ petition was subsequently transferred to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The Administrative Tribunal by its order dated September 4, 1991 allowed the transfer petition and set aside the dismissal order. This appeal by the State of Tamil Nadu is against the order of the Administrative Tribunal.

4. The Administrative Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal solely on re-appreciation of the evidence recorded by the inquiring authority and reaching the conclusion that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the charges against the respondent. We have no hesitation in holding at the outset that the Administrative Tribunal fell into patent error in reappreciating and going into the sufficiency of evidence. It has been authoritatively settled by string of authorities of this Court that the Administrative Tribunal cannot sit as a Court of Appeal over a decision based on the findings of the inquiring authority in disciplinary proceedings. Where there is some relevant material which the disciplinary authority has accepted and which material reasonably support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority, it is not the function of the Administrative Tribunal to review the same and reach different finding than that of the disciplinary authority. The Administrative Tribunal, in this case, has found no fault with the proceedings held by the inquiring authority. It has quashed the dismissal order by reappreciating the evidence and reaching a finding different than that of the inquiring authority.

5. The charges framed against the respondent were as under:-

"Charge I(i):

The accused officer had failed to seize cash Rs. 578.53 found on the person of Christopher, one of the accused in the above case and to treat the same as case property, but treated as personal cash.

Charge III:

That actuated by corrupt motive and in abuse of his position and authority when he was working as Sub-Inspector of Police(Crime) D-2 Anna Salai Police Station. Madras demanded and received an illegal gratification of Rs. 100 - on 6-4-1974 at about 6 p.m. outside the D-2 Anna Salai Police Station, Madras-2 from Mr. K. R. Padmanabhan (mentioned under Charge I) for arresting the absconding accused involved in Crime No. 427/74 under Section 420, I.P.C. of D-2 Anna Salai Police Station. Madras-2 and also for investigation of the case.

Charge IV :

That actuated by corrupt motive and in abuse of his position and authority, when he (accused officer) was working as Sub-Inspector of Police (Crime), D-2 Police Station, Madras, he (accused officer) demanded an illegal gratification of Rupees 2,000/- from Mr. K. R. Padmanabhan, witness mentioned under Charge I, when he came to D-2 Police Station after two days of registration of the case (Cr. No. 427/74), Section 420, I.P.C., D-2 Anna Salai Police Station, Madras to find out the progress of his case, to go to Tirunelveli and other places in search of the absconding accused, concerned in Cr.No. 427/74 of D-2 Police Station, and received Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification from the said Padmanabhan in the front verandah of the D-2 Police Station, Madras-2 at about 5.30 p.m. on 12-4-1974 and at the same time also demanded another sum of Rs. 1,000/- as illegal gratification stating that the amount of Rs. 500/- given was inadequate to meet the expenses."

6. During the inquiry apart from documentary

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1994 Supreme(SC) 1058

Cases Referred (2)