TMI Blog1975 (8) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were that the respondent claimed false travelling allowance on certain days in the months of January, April and September, 1964. The respondent denied the charges and submitted a written statement on 4 November, 1968. The Tribunal made inquiries and on 9 December, 1968 recommended dismissal of the respondent from the service. The Government thereafter gave a notice to the respondent on 22 February, 1969 to show cause why the penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed on him. On 20 March, 1969 the respondent submitted his written explanation. The Government after considering the explanation of the respondent, by an order dated 24 May, 1969 dismissed the respondent from service. The respondent challenged the order of dismissal in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The High Court by judgment dated 27 July, 1970 set aside the order of dismissal on the ground that the recommendations of the tribunal were not communicated to the respondent alongwith the notice regarding the proposed punishment of dismissal. The High Court observed that it was open to the punishing authority to issue a fresh show cause notice regarding the proposed punishment after communicating the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19 April, 1964. In Exhibit P-45 he said that he did not travel on 24 April, 1964 from Hyderabad to Rajahmundry because. A there was no accommodation. He waited at Hyderabad. On 28 April, 1964 he got reservation and travelled to Rajahmundry. The Tribunal on enquiry found the respondent guilty of charges 1 and 2. In the Enquiry Report dated 9 December, 1968, the Tribunal recommended dismissal of the respondent. The respondent in the High Court challenged the order of dismissal. The High Court set aside the order of dismissal on the grounds that the prosecution did not adduce every material and essential evidence to make out the charges and that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal was not based on evidence. The High Court held that Exhibit P-45 was not admissible in evidence according to the Evidence Act and it was not safe to rely on such a statement as a matter of prudence. The High Court said that corruption or misconduct under rule 2(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, has the same meaning as criminal misconduct in the discharge of official duties in section 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat one first class ticket bearing No. 04049 for the journey from Rajahmundry to Hyderabad was sold to one A. S. Murty for the journey an 19 April, 1964. The Tribunal examined the respondent. The respondent was given full opportunity to deal with Exhibit P-45. The High Court was not correct in holding that the domestic enquiry before the Tribunal was the same as prosecution in a criminal case. The High Court was also in error in holding that Conductor s chart would show whether the respondent travelled or not. The High Court accepted the explanation that Conductor s charts were burnt and, therefore, they could not be produced. Further, Conductor s. chart could not show the name of the persons paying the money. There was positive evidence before the Tribunal of tickets being purchased by persons other than respondent on 3 January, 1964 and 19 April, 1964. These features figured prominently before the Tribunal. The High Court all throughout treated the enquiry before the Tribunal as a criminal prosecution. The scope of Article 226 in dealing with departmental inquiries has come up before this Court. Two propositions were laid down by this Court in State of Andhra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R. 548.) said that the High Court does not interfere with the conclusion of the disciplinary authority unless the finding is not supported by any evidence or it can be said that no reasonable person could have reached such a finding. In Niranjan Singh s case (supra) this Court held that the High Court exceeded its powers in interfering with the findings of the disciplinary authority on the charge that the respondent was instrumental in compelling the shut-down of an air compressor at about 8.15 a.m. On 31 May, 1956. This Court said that the Enquiry Committee felt that the evidence of two persons that the respondent led a group of strikers and compelled them to close down their compressor could not be accepted at its face value. The General Manager did not agree with the Enquiry Committee on that point. The General Manager accepted the evidence. This Court said that it was open to the General Manager to do so and he was not bound by the conclusion reached by the Committee. This Court held that the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority should prevail and the High Court should not have interfered with the conclusion. The jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent in the petition before the High Court was that B Report and Investigation Report to which the reference is made by the Tribunal in its report and which are relied on to support the charges, were not made available to the respondent. The High Court did not express any opinion on this question because the High Court set aside the dismissal in the ground that there was no evidence for the Tribunal to come to that conclusion. The State in the affidavit filed in the High Court in answer to the respondent s petition said that B Report and Investigation Report are secret reports which are intended for the reference of the Tribunal of Disciplinary Proceedings and the Government and, therefore, these reports are not supplied, to the officers. We need not express any opinion on that answer of the State in the affidavit. The respondent in answer to the affidavit of the State said that the Tribunal used the B Report and the Investigation Report against the respondent and did not supply copies. It is because the respondent alleged in the writ petition that the Tribunal relied on B Report and Investigation Report, we looked into the Inquiry Report of the Tribunal to find out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
