9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he District Government Pleader. The District Government Pleader informed the District Judge of the demand of illegal gratification made by the respondent. On the bases thereof, the District Judge made adverse remarks against the respondent in his Confidential Reports for 1989-90. On coming to know of the same, the respondent made an appeal to the High Court to expunge the said remarks. The High Court, thereon, has directed the District Judge to substantiate the adverse remarks after recording the evidence of the aforesaid advocates. Subsequently, their statements came to be recorded. It is relevant to note, at this stage, that the respondent by then was transferred from Nasik by notification dated April 26, 1990, but had not been relieved by the date when a letter was sent by Mr. Gite, District Government Pleader to the District Judge on May 4, 1990. On the basis of the statements recorded from the aforesaid three persons and also Smt. Kundanben, the complainant, the High Court initiated disciplinary enquiry against the respondent. The Enquiry Officer after giving reasonable opportunity to the respondent conducted enquiry and submitted his report. The charge framed against the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty have recommended to Government to inflict the punishment of dismissal from service on the said Shri Naiknimbalkar; And Whereas, on considering the report and the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the cause shown by the said Shri Naiknimbalkar and the recommendation of the Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, the Government of Maharashtra has decided to accept the said recommendation of the Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay to inflict the punishment of dismissal from service on the said Shri Kaiknimbelkar; 5. Calling in question this order of dismissal from service, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court. The Division Bench after noticing various decisions of this Court came to the conclusion that the District Judge was biased against the respondent; and he recorded the evidence of three witnesses, advocates and the complainant. That formed the foundation for laying the action against the respondent. The circumstances available on record do indicate that no reasonable man would reach the conclusion that the respondent was actuated with a corrupt motive to demand illegal gratification to deliver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent office or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding to fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been summed up on paragraph 18 thus : A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. 9. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal in reversing the imposing of the penalty was set aside. In another judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. S. Subaramaniam [1996] 7 SCC 509, this Court has considered the scope of the pow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1996) ILLJ 1231 SC, State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V. Venugopalan (1994) 6 SCC 302, Union of India v. Upendra Singh (1994) ILLJ 808 SC, Government of Tamil Nadu v. A. Rajapandian (1995) ILLJ 953 SC and B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India at pp. 759- 60. In view of the settled legal position, the Tribunal has committed serious error of law in appreciation of the evidence and in coming to its own conclusion that the charge had not been proved. Thus we hold that the view of the Tribunal is ex facie illegal. The order is accordingly set aside. OA/TP/WP stands dismissed. 10. These two judgments squarely cover the controversy in this case. 11. It is seen that the evidence came to be recorded pursuant to the complaint made by Smt. Kundanben, defendant in the suit for eviction. It is true that due to time lag between the date of the complaint and the date of recording of evidence in 1992 by the Enquiry Officer, there is bound to be some discrepancies in evidence. But the Disciplinary proceedings are not a criminal trial. Therefore, the scope of enquiry is entirely different from that of criminal trial in which the charge is required to be proved beyond doubt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nduct of the respondent required adverse comments. But when enquiry was done, the statements of the aforesaid persons were recorded; supplied to the respondent; and were duly cross-examined, the question arises: whether their evidence is acceptable or not? In view of the admitted position that the respondent himself did admit that Gite had no axe to grind against him and the District Judge having acted upon that statement, it is difficult to accept the contention that the District Judge was biased against the respondent and that he fabricated false evidence against the respondent of the three advocates and the complainant. When that evidence was available before the disciplinary authority, namely, the High Court, it cannot be said that it is not a case of no evidence; nor could it be said that no reasonable person like the Committee of five Judges and thereafter the Government could reach the conclusion that the charge was proved. So, the conclusion reached by the High Court on reconsideration of the evidence that the charges prima facie were proved against the respondent and opportunity was given to him to explain why disciplinary action of dismissal from service could not be take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
