TMI Blog1989 (3) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Singh, JJ. REPRESENTED BY: Mr. Mahajan, Central Government Counsel, for the Appellant. Mr. Ashri, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.]. - The civil appeal, by special leave, and the connected SLP raise an important issue as to the power of the Central Administration Tribunal ( Tribunal ) to examine the adequacy of penalty awarded by the competent authority to a Government servant in disciplinary proceedings. 2. Short factual backgrounds is this: Parma Nanda - Respondent in the appeal was a Time Keeper in Beas Sutlej Link Project, Sundernagar. He was in charge of preparing the pay bills and other bills of the work charged employees of the project. It was alleged that he master-minded and prepared the pay roll pertaining to T Token of Central Survey Division, Sundernagar for the month of May, 1969 and entered the name of one Shri Ashok Kumar, Token No. 59-T at serial No. 10 on page 2 of the relevant pay roll. He made this entry with ulterior motive to withdraw the pay of Ashok Kumar for the month of May 1969, even though Ashok Kumar was not working in that Division. A bogus identity card in the name of Ashok Kumar T.No. 59-T wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od transferred to the Tribunal by operation of Section 29 of that Act. The Tribunal upon consideration of the matter agreed with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer that the respondent was the master mind behind the scheme to defraud the project. The Tribunal observed : Since the application had access to the records which were fabricated at the relevant time the Inquiry Officer had come to the conclusion that the applicant was the master mind behind the scheme to defraud the Project. In view of the foregoing, it cannot be termed that the finding returned by the Inquiry Officer is without any evidence." It was also observed that there was no denial of a reasonable opportunity for the respondent to set up proper defence. After reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal proceeded to examine the adequacy of penalty awarded to the respondent. This is how the Tribunal dealt with that question : Lastly, it was argued on behalf of the applicant that the punishment awarded to him is disproportionate to the gravity of the charge proved against him and is in stark contrast to the punishment awarded to his other three colleagues in whose cases, only future increments were sto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n from the charge has preferred the SLP No. 6998 of 1988. 3. The question which has to be decided, therefore, is whether the Tribunal has power to modify the penalty awarded to the respondent when the findings recorded as to his misdemeanour is supported by legal evidence. To put in other words, whether the Tribunal could interfere with the penalty awarded by the Competent authority on the ground that it is excessive or disproportionate to the misconduct proved? The answer to the question cannot be determined without reference to the scope of judicial review in the pre-Tribunal period. It is also necessary to remember the purpose for which the Tribunal came to be established. Before the Tribunal was constituted, the Courts were exercising judicial review of administrative decisions in public services. This judicial review was sought to be taken away by the Constitution (42nd Amendment Act, 1976). By this amendment, Articles 323A and 323B were introduced in the Constitution, thereby opening altogether a new chapter in our Administrative law. Article 323A(1) which is relevant for our purpose is confined to matters relating to the public services. It provides power to Parliament to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal with a Bench at Chandigarh whose order has been challenged before us. 6. It is now necessary to examine in detail the amplitude of powers of the Tribunal. Section 14, so far material, provides : 14. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal: (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all courts (except Supreme Court) in relation to :- (a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any All-India Service or to any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union or to a post connected wilh defence or in the defence services, being in either case, a post filled by a civilian; (b) all service matters concerning - xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx" Similar are the powers and authority of the State Service Tribunal under Section 15 and Joint Administrative Tribunal under Section 16. The expression all courts in this connection includes civil courts and High Court but not the Supreme Court. The powers of the Supreme Court for obvious reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat we have set out at the beginning of the judgment. Mr. Mahajan, learned Counsel for the Central Government urged that the Tribunal has no powers to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority on the ground that it is disproportionate to the proved misdemeanour. He also urged that if the enquiry held against the delinquent officer was proper with the findings supported by evidence then, the Tribunal cannot sustitute its own judgment to modify the punishmeni awarded. Mr. Ashri, learned Counsel for the respondent, however, justified the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in awarding the lesser punishment. We do not think that we could accept so bold a submission made for the respondent, nor can it be sustained by other consideration. Indeed, the contention for the respondent is unsustainable in view of the decisions of this Court. 9. In State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushun [1963 (Suppl.) 1 SCR 648] the enquiry was conducted against the petitioner on several charges and eventually he was dismissed from service. The Orissa High Court found that the findings on two of the charges were bad being in violation of the principles of natural justice. The findings on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by a competent authority on a public servant, if the conditions of the constitutional protection have been complied with, is not justifiable. Therefore, if the order maybe supported on any finding as to substantial misdemeanour for which the punishment can lawfully be imposed, it is not for the court to consider whether that ground alone would have weighed with the authority in dismissing the public servant. The Court has no jurisdiction if the findings of the enquiry officer or the Tribunal prima facie make out a case of misdemeanour, to direct the authority to reconsider that order because in respect of some of the findings but not all it appears that there had been violation of the rules of natural justice. The High Court was, in our judgment, in error in directing the Governor of Orissa to reconsider the question." 10. In Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (AIR 1956 SC 271), Mehar Chand Mahajan, C.J., while dealing with a reference application against an order of Income-Tax Tribunal under the Indian Income Tax Act had struck slightly a different note (at 273): The learned Attorney General frankly conceded that it could not be denied that to a certain e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of the Chief Settlement Commission and directing him to proceed to decide the case on merits. The Commissioner re-heard the entire case as directed by the Court but came to the same conclusion as before and reaffirmed his earlier decision cancelling the allotment. The person unsuccessfully moved the High Court with a writ petition challenging the order of the Commissioner and finally appealed to the Supreme Court. In dismissing that appeal, Shelat, J., made inter alia, the following observations (at 1540): The High Court was right in holding that even if there were amongst the reasons given by the Commissioner, some which were extraneous, if the rest were relevant and could be considered sufficient, the Commissioner s conclusions would not be vitiated. The principle that if some of the reasons relied on by a Tribunal for its conclusion turn out to be extraneous or otherwise unsustainable, its decision would be vitiated, applies to cases in which the conclusion is arrived at not on assessment of objective satisfaction. The reason is that whereas in cases where the decision is based on subjective satisfaction if some of the reasons turn out to be irrelevant or invalid, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e punishment can be imposed, it is not for the Court to consider whether the charge proved alone would have weighed with the authority in imposing the punishment. The Court is not concerned to decide whether the punishment imposed, provided it is justified by the rules, is appropriate having regard to the misdemeanour established. So much is, we think, established law on the scope of jurisdiction and the amplitude of powers of the Tribunal. However, of late we have been receiving a large number of appeals from the orders of Tribunals - Central and States - complaining about the interference with the penalty awarded in the disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunals seem to take it within their discretion to interfere with the penalty on the ground that it is not commensurate with the delinquency of the official. The law already declared by this Court, which we reiterate, makes it clear that the Tribunals have no such discretion or power. 12. We must unequivocally state that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, two increments with future effect, of the appellant were ordered to be withheld. This decision is, therefore, no authority for the proposition that the High Court or the Tribunal has jurisdiction to impose any punishment to meet the ends of justice. It may be noted that this Court exercised the equitable jurisdiction under Article 136 and the High Court or Tribunal has no such power or jurisdiction. We may however, carve out one exception to this proposition. There may be cases where the penalty is imposed under clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Where the person, without enquiry is dismissed, removed or reduced in rank solely on the basis of conviction by a criminal court, the Tribunal may examine the adequacy of the penalty imposed in the light of the conviction and sentence inflicted on the person. If the penalty impugned is apparently unreasonable or uncalled for, having regard to the nature of the criminal charge, the Tribunal may step in to render substantial justice. The Tribunal may remit the matter to the competent authority for reconsideration or by itself substitute one of the penalties provided under clause (a). This p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
