State
of Tamil Nadu & Anr Vs. S. Subramaniam [1996] INSC 129 (24 January 1996)
Ramaswamy,
K.Ramaswamy, K.Ahmad Saghir S. (J) G.B. Pattanaik (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 1232 JT 1996 (2) 114 1996 SCALE (1)810
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Leave
granted.
This
appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Administrative Tribunal
dated 12.2.1992 made in T.A. No.1315/89 (Writ Petition No.2050/84) transferred
from the Madras High Court after of constitution of the Administrative Tribunal
with jurisdiction over disputes with respect to recruitment and conditions of
the service of the employees of the Tamil Nadu etc. The Tribunal in its order
dated 12.2.1992 set aside the order of removal from service of the respondent
on September 30, 1983 on the finding that merely reproducing the views of the
Commission and a certification that the matter has been examined does not
constitute a proper statutory order complying with requirements of rule 23 [i]
of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Control & Appeal) Rules (for shorts 'the
Rules'). The facts not in dispute are as under:
The
respondent while working as a Deputy Tehsildar, Palani along with Revenue
Inspector was charged to have acted, by corrupt motive, demanded and accepted
illegal gratification from Thiru Veluchamy, son of Thiru Achara Naicker, Perumalnaickenvalasu
Village Palai Taluk. Pursuant thereto, Veluchamy paid a sum of Rs . 50/- to the
respondent and Rs.20/- to the Revenue Inspector for effecting mutation of the
name of the complainant in revenue records. The complainant was serving in the
army. During the holidays when he came to his native place, he and his brother
effected partition of their properties. In furtherance thereof, he sought
mutation of his name in the entries in the revenue record of the lands that fell
to his share.
For
the said purpose, he repeatedly approached the Revenue Inspector for effecting
mutation who had stated that he required certain payments to be made which he
had complied with and amount was paid. He also demanded that Tehsildar required
Rs 50/-. When the complainant approached the respondent, the latter directed
him to do whatever the Revenue Inspector directed him to do. In other words the
complaint is that on demand by the respondent of illegal gratification to
discharge official duty and on his direction he paid the same to the Revenue
Inspector who had received on his behalf. The complaint in that behalf was also
laid with the Anti- Corruption Bureau and the trap was laid on the Revenue
Inspector and he was caught. On the basis of the above evidence, charges were
framed in a detailed manner, enquiry was conducted and opportunity also was
given to the respondent to defend himself in the enquiry. After examination of
the evidence, the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that the charge
was proved.
Accordingly,
a show cause notice was issued to him. On consideration of the reply to show
cause notice, the respondent was removed from the service. The appeal as
dismissed. After the Tribunal was constituted, the pending writ petition along
with all other service cases were transferred to the Tribunal.
The
Tribunal appreciated the evidence of the complainant and according to it the
evidence of the complainant was discrepant and held that the appellant had not
satisfactorily proved that the respondent had demanded and accepted illegal
gratification. The Tribunal trenched upon appreciation of evidence of the
complainant, did not rely on it to prove the above charges. On that basis, it
set aside the order of the removal. Thus this appeal by special leave.
The
only question is: whether the Tribunal was right in its conclusion to
appreciate the evidence and to reach its own finding that the charge has not
been proved. The Tribunal is not a court of appeal. The power of judicial
review of the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India was taken away by the power under
Article 323A and invested the same on the Tribunal by Central Administrative
Tribunal Act. It is settled law that the Tribunal has only power of judicial
review of the administrative action of the appellant on complaints relating to
service conditions of employees. It is the exclusive domain of the disciplinary
authority to consider the evidence on record and to record findings whether the
charge has been proved or not. It is equally settled law that technical rules
of evidence has no application for the disciplinary proceedings and the
authority is to consider the material on record. In judicial review, it is
settled law that the Court or the Tribunal has no power to trench on the
jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own conclusion.
Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in
which the decision is made. It is meant to ensure that the delinquent receives
fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority
reaches is necessarily correct in the view of the court or tribunal. When the
conclusion reached by the authority is based on evidence, Tribunal is devoid of
power to re-appreciate the evidence and would come to its own conclusion on the
proof of the charge. The only consideration the Court/Tribunal has in its
judicial review is to consider whether the conclusion is based on evidence on
record and supports the finding or whether the conclusion is based on no
evidence. This is consistent view of this Court vide B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union
of India [JT 1995 (8) SC 65], State of Tamil Nadu vs. T.V. Venugopalan [(1994)
6 SCC 302 para 7], Union of India vs. Upendra
Singh [(1994) 3 SCC 357 at para 6], Government of Tamil Nadu & Anr. vs. A. Rajapandian
[(1995) 1 SCC 216 para 4] and Union of India vs. B.S. Chaturvedi [(1995) 6 SCC
749 at 759-60]. In view of the settled legal position, the Tribunal has
committed serious error of law in appreciation of the evidence and-in coming to
its own conclusion that the charge had not been proved.
Thus
we hold that the view of the Tribunal is ex facie illegal. The order is
accordingly set aside. OA/TP/WP stand dismissed.
The
appeal is accordingly allowed. The I.A.stands dismissed. No costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2