Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned the removal of a Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies under the Government of Tamil Nadu, who was suspended pending enquiry into grave charges set out in a memo of charges dated November 1987. The charges were two in number with supporting material and particulars elaborately set out. The respondent did not furnish a reply to the memo of charges, but by an application dated September 23, 1988, he asked for perusal of certain records and files which he considered essential for preparing his statement of defence. On September 26, 1989, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies wrote to the respondent asking him to specify how the records requested were relevant to the charges, stating that his duty was to supply only relevant documents and not each and every document asked for. It appeared that the respondent did not comply with this letter. The enquiry officer sent notices to the respondent to attend the enquiry, but the respondent declined to do so. The enquiry officer then perused the records and submitted a report holding both charges established. A copy of the enquiry officer's report was communicated to the respondent, who submitted a detailed representation. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, consulted in the matter, recommended removal. On September 22, 1991, the respondent was served with orders removing him from service; he was to retire on September 30, 1991. A review petition filed by the respondent was rejected by the Government, whereupon he approached the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 1053 of 1992. The Tribunal allowed the original application, set aside the order of removal, and directed that the respondent be treated as on medical leave during the period of suspension and entitled to all benefits under the Rules. The Tribunal allowed the original application on four grounds: (1) charges were vague; (2) appointment of enquiry officer was illegal as the person appointed was himself a witness; (3) failure to supply documents amounted to violation of principles of natural justice; and (4) charges were not established on material before the enquiry officer/disciplinary authority. The State appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found grounds 1, 2, and 4 unsustainable. On ground 1, the Court perused the memo of charges and found no vagueness. On ground 2, the Court observed that the Tribunal's finding appeared based upon a mistake as to the identity of the person appointed as enquiry officer. On ground 4, the Court reiterated that it is not the province of the Tribunal to go into the truth or otherwise of charges and that the Tribunal is not an appellate authority over departmental authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction. Only ground 3 regarding non-supply of documents remained. The Supreme Court held that the disciplinary authority is bound to supply only relevant documents, not each and every document requested. The Tribunal had not recorded any finding on whether the documents asked for were indeed relevant and whether their non-supply prejudiced the respondent's case. The test set out in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma [1996 (3) SCALE 202] required the delinquent to point out how each document was relevant and how non-supply prejudiced his case; equally the Tribunal must record a finding on relevance and prejudice. Since this was not done, the matter had to go back for rehearing. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order under appeal, and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal of the original application in accordance with law and in light of observations made, with the scope of enquiry confined only to ground No.3. No costs were ordered.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Departmental Enquiry - Supply of Documents - Not mentioned - The respondent, a Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, requested certain records for preparing his defence; the Registrar asked him to specify relevance, but he did not. The Supreme Court held that the disciplinary authority is bound to supply only relevant documents, not each and every document requested; the delinquent must demonstrate both relevance and prejudice. The Tribunal failed to record findings on relevance and prejudice, so the matter was remitted for fresh consideration confined to this ground. Held that the test in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma must be applied. B) Service Law - Departmental Enquiry - Scope of Judicial Review by Tribunal - Not mentioned - The Tribunal set aside the removal order partly on the ground that charges were not established on material before the enquiry officer. The Supreme Court reiterated that it is not the province of the Tribunal to go into the truth or otherwise of the charges; the Tribunal is not an appellate authority over departmental authorities. Held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in re-appreciating evidence; the fourth ground was unsustainable. C) Service Law - Departmental Enquiry - Vagueness of Charges - Not mentioned - The Tribunal held the charges were vague. The Supreme Court perused the memo of charges and found no vagueness, as two charges with supporting material and particulars were elaborately set out. Held that the ground of vagueness was unsustainable. D) Service Law - Departmental Enquiry - Bias/Appointment of Enquiry Officer - Not mentioned - The Tribunal found the appointment of the enquiry officer illegal because he was allegedly a witness. The Supreme Court observed that this ground appeared based upon a mistake as to the identity of the person appointed as enquiry officer. Held that the second ground was unsustainable.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in setting aside the removal order on grounds of vagueness of charges, illegal appointment of enquiry officer, failure to supply documents, and alleged lack of evidence; whether the disciplinary authority is bound to supply each and every document requested by the delinquent officer; and what is the correct test for establishing prejudice due to non-supply of documents.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and remitted the matter to the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal for fresh disposal of Original Application No. 1053 of 1992, confining the enquiry to ground No.3 (non-furnishing of documents) and directing the Tribunal to apply the test in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma and record findings on relevance and prejudice. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Not province of Tribunal to go into truth of charges
- Disciplinary authority duty only to supply relevant documents not each and every
- Delinquent must demonstrate relevance and prejudice from non-supply
- Tribunal must record finding on relevance and prejudice
- Test of prejudice under State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma
