1989 (3) TMI 233 - SC - Central Excise

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? Held that - In the light of the principles to which we have called attention the order of the Tribunal imposing a lesser penalty on the respondent cannot, therefore, be sustained. He was found guilty of the charge framed against him. He was a party to the fraudulent act for self aggrandisement. He prepared bogus documents for withdrawal of salary in the name of Ashok Kumar who was not working in his Division. He has thus proved himself unbecoming and unworthy to hold any post. Any sympathy or charitable view on such officials will not be conducive to keep the streams of administration pure which is so vital for the success of our democracy. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Tribunal.

Issues Involved:
1. Power of the Central Administrative Tribunal to examine the adequacy of penalty awarded to a government servant in disciplinary proceedings.
2. Jurisdiction and powers of the Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.
3. Scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters.
4. Validity of the Tribunal's discretion to interfere with penalties imposed by disciplinary authorities.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Power of the Central Administrative Tribunal to examine the adequacy of penalty awarded to a government servant in disciplinary proceedings:

The central issue in this case was whether the Tribunal had the authority to modify the penalty awarded by the competent authority to a government servant, based on the adequacy or proportionality of the punishment. The Tribunal had reduced the penalty imposed on the respondent from dismissal to stopping of five increments, arguing that the punishment was disproportionate to the gravity of the charge and inconsistent with penalties given to others involved in the same act. The Supreme Court, however, held that the Tribunal does not have the power to interfere with the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority if the findings are supported by legal evidence and the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

2. Jurisdiction and powers of the Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985:

The judgment analyzed the statutory framework of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, particularly Sections 14, 15, 16, 27, 28, and 29, which outline the jurisdiction, powers, and authority of the Tribunal. The Act confers on the Tribunal the jurisdiction previously exercised by civil courts and High Courts in relation to service matters, including disciplinary matters. However, the Tribunal's powers are limited to those of judicial review and do not extend to substituting its own judgment for that of the disciplinary authority.

3. Scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters:

The Court reiterated that judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited. The Tribunal cannot act as an appellate body to re-evaluate the evidence or the appropriateness of the punishment. The Court cited several precedents, including State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan and Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, to emphasize that if the enquiry and the findings are supported by evidence, the penalty imposed by the competent authority cannot be altered by the Tribunal unless it is arbitrary or perverse.

4. Validity of the Tribunal's discretion to interfere with penalties imposed by disciplinary authorities:

The Supreme Court clarified that the Tribunal's jurisdiction does not include the power to interfere with the penalties imposed by the disciplinary authority unless there is a violation of principles of natural justice or the findings are wholly unsupported by evidence. The Court stressed that the power to impose penalties is vested in the competent authority by legislative acts or rules under Article 309 of the Constitution, and the Tribunal cannot substitute its discretion for that of the authority.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order that reduced the penalty imposed on the respondent. The Court emphasized that the respondent was found guilty of serious misconduct involving fraud and that leniency in such cases would undermine the integrity of public administration. Consequently, the respondent's Special Leave Petition seeking complete exoneration was dismissed. The judgment reinforced the principle that the Tribunal's role is limited to ensuring that the disciplinary process adheres to legal and procedural norms, without encroaching on the discretionary powers of the disciplinary authorities.

← Previous Next →