Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
N. RAJARATHINAM
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/09/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
This special leave petition has been filed against an
order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras
Bench, made an February 26, 1996 in Da No.2152 of 1991. The
petitioner, while working as Assistant commissioner of
Commercial Taxes, demanded and accepted illegal
gratification. Consequently he was suspended from service
on October 1, 1995. An enquiry into the charges was
conducted by the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings. The
Tribunal recommended dismissal of the petitioner form
service on the basis of the finding that the preponderance
of evidence established that petitioner had demanded and
accepted illegal gratification from PW -I
(Shammugasundaram). Accepting the report, the disciplinary
authority by its order dated January 6, 1989, dismissed the
petitioner form service. The petitioner than filed DA in
the Tribunal. In the first instance, the Tribunal allowed
the petition. Subsequently, when an appeal was filled in
this Court, this Court by it s order dated September 8, 1995
set aside the Tribunal’s order and held that the Tribunal is
not a fact finding authority and the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal is such matters is well settled. It was also held
that Administrative Member cannot alone decide the matter.
After the matter was remitted to the Tribunal, it held that
though other witnesses had turned hostile the evidence of
PW-1 and other evidence on record was found to be sufficient
to dismiss the petitioner form service. Accordingly, the
Tribunal has upheld the order of dismissal from service.
Thus, this special leave.
Mr. Ambrish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner,
has contended that as many as 17 witnesses examined by the
Government to prove the charges of demand and acceptance,
have turned hostile and they were declared hostile by the
prosecution. The solitary evidence by PW-1, chronic
defaulter in payment of sales Tax, is without corroboration
on material particulars and is not sufficient for order of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
dismissal of the petitioner form service. We find no force
in the contention. Admittedly, the Evidence Act has no
application for the disciplinary proceedings. The report of
the Tribunal was material before the disciplinary authority
to take action in accordance with law. It is true that the
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commissioner had recommended to
take a lenient view in the matter but the Government had not
accepted the recommendation. The view of the Public Service
Commission being only recommendatory, the Government was not
bound to accept the recommendation made by the Public
Service Commission. Taking all the facts and the
circumstances of the case, the Government had accepted the
finding of the Tribunal that preponderance of probabilities
did establish that the petitioner had demanded and accepted
illegal gratification form PW-1 and thereby he committed
misconduct rightly leading to dismissal from service. This
finding having been based upon the evidence of PW-1, it
cannot be said that the findings is based upon no evidence.
It is for the disciplinary authority to take into
consideration all the relevant facts and circumstance and is
found that the evidence establishes misconduct against a
public servant, the disciplinary authority is perfectly
empowered to take appropriate decision as to the nature of
the findings on the proof of guilt. Once there is a finding
as regards the proof of misconduct, While making decision
to impose punishment of dismissal from service, if the
disciplinary authority had take the decision keeping in view
the discipline in the service. Though this Court is
empowered to go into the question as to the nature of the
punishment imposed, it has to be considered in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of each case. No doubt, there is no
allegation of misconduct against the officer during his
earlier carrier. But it does not mean that proved allegation
is not sufficient to impose the penalty of dismissal from
service. Considered from this perspective. we think that
there is no illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal
warranting an interference.
Accordingly, this special leave petition is dismissed.