Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by special leave preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu against an order dated 12.02.1992 of the Administrative Tribunal, which had set aside the removal from service of the respondent, S. Subramaniam, a Deputy Tehsildar. The respondent was originally removed from service on 30.09.1983 after disciplinary proceedings in which he was found guilty of corruptly demanding and accepting illegal gratification. The respondent, along with a Revenue Inspector, was alleged to have demanded money from one Veluchamy for effecting mutation of revenue records. The complainant, serving in the army, had approached the Revenue Inspector and then the respondent, who allegedly directed him to pay as demanded. A trap was laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, and the Revenue Inspector was caught. After a departmental enquiry, the disciplinary authority found the charge proved, issued a show cause notice, and upon considering the reply, removed the respondent from service. His appeal was dismissed. The writ petition challenging the removal was transferred to the Administrative Tribunal after its constitution. The Tribunal re-appreciated the evidence, found the complainant's evidence discrepant, and held that the State had not satisfactorily proved that the respondent had demanded and accepted illegal gratification. Consequently, it set aside the removal order. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal is not a court of appeal and has only the power of judicial review of administrative action. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. The Tribunal cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own conclusion; it can only consider whether the conclusion is based on evidence on record and supports the finding or whether it is based on no evidence. The Court relied on precedents including B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V. Venugopalan, Union of India v. Upendra Singh, Government of Tamil Nadu v. A. Rajapandian, and Union of India v. B.S. Chaturvedi. It held that the Tribunal committed a serious error of law in re-appreciating the evidence and arriving at its own conclusion, and its order was ex facie illegal. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order, dismissed the OA/TP/WP, and allowed the appeal with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Power of Judicial Review by Administrative Tribunal - Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 226 and 323A; Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Tribunal is not a court of appeal and cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own finding for that of the disciplinary authority - Its jurisdiction is confined to examining whether the conclusion is based on evidence on record and supports the finding or is based on no evidence - Held that the Tribunal committed serious error of law in appreciating evidence and arriving at its own conclusion that the charge was not proved; its order was ex facie illegal and was set aside (Paras 1-3). B) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Applicability of Evidence Rules and Standard of Proof - Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Control & Appeal) Rules - Technical rules of evidence have no application in disciplinary proceedings; the disciplinary authority is the exclusive domain to consider material on record and record findings - The Tribunal trenched upon the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority by disbelieving the complainant's evidence as discrepant and holding that the charge was not satisfactorily proved - Held that such re-appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal was beyond the scope of judicial review (Paras 1-3). C) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Limitations on Judicial Review by Administrative Tribunals - Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 226 and 323A - Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made; it ensures fair treatment, not the correctness of the conclusion - The only consideration is whether the conclusion is based on evidence on record and supports the finding or whether it is based on no evidence - Held that the Tribunal's view was ex facie illegal; appeal allowed, Tribunal's order set aside, OA/TP/WP dismissed with no order as to costs (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Administrative Tribunal was right in appreciating the evidence and reaching its own finding that the charge had not been proved, thereby setting aside the removal order
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Administrative Tribunal dated 12.02.1992, dismissed the OA/TP/WP, and directed that the removal order stand restored. No costs were awarded.
Law Points
- Tribunal is not a court of appeal
- judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made
- disciplinary authority is the exclusive domain to consider evidence and record findings
- technical rules of evidence have no application in disciplinary proceedings
- tribunal can only consider whether conclusion is based on evidence on record and supports the finding or whether conclusion is based on no evidence
