9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Validity of the order of removal from service - Jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal in appreciating evidence - Scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings Analysis: The Supreme Court addressed an appeal arising from an order of the Administrative Tribunal regarding the removal of an employee from service. The Tribunal had set aside the removal order, questioning its compliance with Rule 23(i) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Control & Appeal) Rules. The respondent, a Deputy Tehsildar, was accused of accepting illegal gratification for official duties. The disciplinary authority found the charges proved, leading to the respondent's removal. However, the Tribunal, in its review, concluded that the evidence was discrepant and the charges were not satisfactorily proven. The key issue was whether the Tribunal had the authority to independently assess evidence in disciplinary matters, which the Supreme Court examined in detail. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Tribunal's role is limited to judicial review of administrative actions, particularly concerning service conditions. It clarified that the Tribunal does not have the power to reevaluate evidence or reach independent conclusions in disciplinary proceedings. The Court highlighted that technical rules of evidence do not apply in such cases, and the disciplinary authority is responsible for evaluating the evidence to determine the validity of charges. Judicial review aims to ensure fair treatment for the accused, not to substitute the Tribunal's judgment for that of the disciplinary authority. The Court cited various precedents to support its position, emphasizing that the Tribunal's interference with the disciplinary authority's findings based on evidence was unlawful. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had erred in its assessment of the evidence and overturning the removal order. The Court declared the Tribunal's decision illegal and set it aside, dismissing the original application/transfer petition/writ petition. The appeal was allowed, and the incidental application was dismissed without costs. The judgment reaffirmed the exclusive jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority in determining the proof of charges and the limited role of the Tribunal in reviewing administrative actions.
|
