9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the morning and signed the attendance register, in token of having come to the office and left office without permission and came to the office the next day, i.e., on the morning of 24.11.1992, and affixed his initials in the departure column against the dated 23.11.1992 and willfully falsified the official register. He has thereby committed gross misconduct and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and has behaved in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant, in contravention of the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(1)(iii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE-II That the said Shri P. Gunasekaran, being a ministerial Officer impersonated himself as a Central Excise Executive Officer and on 23.11.1992 about 2.30 p.m. unauthorizedly conducted passenger checks in a public transport bus at Ukkadam Bus Stand, by usurping the powers of Executive Officer and thereby committed gross misconduct and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and behaved in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant in contravention of the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE-III That th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consider the quantum of punishment and pass orders within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ..." 6. The appellants herein challenged the order of the Administrative Tribunal in Writ Petition No. 355 of 2000 before the Madras High Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 12.01.2000. The High Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal. However, in respect of Articles of Charge no.I which does not have any relation to the criminal case, it was held at paragraph-6 as follows: "6. ... Charge No. 1 relates to the unauthorized absence of the respondent from the office. The tribunal was of the view that dismissal from service was not warranted for the said charge. We do not think that the view taken by the Tribunal either unreasonable or irrational which could be interfered with by this court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ..." 7. The disciplinary authority, accordingly, passed order dated 28.02.2000 which reads as follows: "Whereas on consideration of the facts and records of the case with regard to Article-I of the disciplinary proceedings against Shri P. Gunasekar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whereby he brought to the notice of the Collector what was transpired on 23.11.1992, and there is no admission made by the petitioner. Therefore, we hold that the enquiry officer has not considered the letter in the proper perspective to arrive at the right conclusion. Therefore, the letter dated 11.12.1992 cannot be taken as the basis, on which, the punishment was imposed and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Further, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner while modifying the order, the respondents should have fixed the date of compulsory retirement from the date of issue of the order, instead of fixing the compulsory retirement from the date of order of dismissal. Further, after going through the contents of the letter, it seems the petitioner has not admitted the charge. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner except the letter of the petitioner, there is no other evidence and whatever evidence is required with regard to charges 2 and 3, which were framed on the basis of the registration of the criminal case against the petitioner, which ultimately ended in acquitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i). re-appreciate the evidence; (ii). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv). go into the reliability of the evidence; (v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience. 14. In one of the earliest decisions in State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. S. Sree Rama Rao1,many of the above principles have been discuss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atan offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court must be applied. If that rule be not applied by a domestic tribunal of inquiry the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not competent to declare the order of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry invalid. The High Court is not a court of appeal under Article 226 over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. The Court is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Second, where there is some evidence which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by a tribunal, a writ can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Again if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. A finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal is insufficient or inadequate to sustain a finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal. See Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan . 24. The High Court in the present case assessed the entire evidence and came to its own conclusion. The High Court was not justified to do so. Apart from the aspect that the High Court does not c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing findings: "Article-I was held as proved by the Inquiry authority after evaluating the evidence adduced in the case. Under the circumstances of the case, the evidence relied on viz., letter dated 11.12.92 written by Shri P. 4 (2014) 4 SCC 108 Gunasekaran, provides a reasonable nexus to the charge framed against him and he did not controvert the contents of the said letter dated 11.12.92 during the time of inquiry. Nor did he produce any defence witness during the inquiry to support his claims including that on 23.11.92 he left the office on permission. There is nothing to indicate that he was handicapped in producing his defence witness. ..." 18. The disciplinary authority, on scanning the inquiry report and having accepted it, after discussing the available and admissible evidence on the charge, and the Central Administrative Tribunal having endorsed the view of the disciplinary authority, it was not at all open to the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 19. Equally, it was not open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en by the inquiry officer has been accepted by the disciplinary authority". 22. That order of the Central Administrative Tribunal was challenged by the respondent in Writ Petition No. 226 of 2000 which was disposed of by judgment dated 12.01.2000 wherein the High Court had also endorsed the said finding which we have already referred to herein before. 23. Thus, the finding on Charge no. I has attained finality. It is the punishment of dismissal on Charge no. I which was directed to be reconsidered by the Central Administrative Tribunal and which view was endorsed by the High Court. On that basis only, the dismissal was converted to compulsory retirement. Such findings cannot be reopened in the subsequent round of litigation at the instance of the respondent. It was only the punishment aspect that was opened to challenge. 24. The Central Administrative Tribunal, in the order dated 01.02.2001 in O.A. No. 521 of 2000, after elaborately discussing the factual as well as the legal position, has come to the conclusion that the punishment of compulsory retirement is not outrageous or shocking to its conscience, it was not open to the High Court to interfere with the disciplinary procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
