B.C. CHATURVEDI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 644 · Decided: 01-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
B.C. CHATURVEDI 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 1, 1995 
fK. RAMASWAMY, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND 
B.L. HANSARIA, JJ] 
Administrative Law-Judicial Review-Scope of-Order of the discipli-
nary autho1ity-On what grounds can be challenged. 
Service Law-Civil Services (Classificatio11 and Control) Rules, 1965-
Misconduct-Meaning of-Public officer found in possession of pecuniary 
resources/property in excess of his known source of income-Whether miscon-
duct-Criminal misconduct-l'revemion of corruption Act, 1947--Section 
S(l)(e). 
Service Law-Delay in laying ch.arges-Effect of-Delay caused as CBI 
was conducting investigation for prosecution under section 5 (1) (e) of 
Prcve11tion of Corruption Act, 1947-Evidence collected not strong 
enough-Departmell/al proceedings recommended-Held, delay is not fatal. 
E 
Service Law-Promotion pending inquiry-Held, cannot act as impedi-
F 
G 
ment in penalizing the delinquent officer after inquiry. 
Service Law-Penalty-When can be substituted/altered by 
Cowt/Tribunal-Disciplinary authority imposing penalty of dismissal from 
se1vice--Held, can be inte1j'ered with on~r wizen it shocks conscience of the 
Court/Ttibuna/. 
Comtitution of India-Article 142-Whether power to do complete 
justice is available to the High CourtS-Constitution of Jndia-A1ticles 226 
and 227. 
The appellant was an Income Tax Officer. An investigation was 
conducted against the appellant by the C.B.I. which disclosed that the 
appellant possessed assets disproportionate to his known source of in-
come. As the evidence collected by the CBI was not found strong enough 
to lay prosecution under Section S(l)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption 
H Act, 1947(equivalent to Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption 
644 
B.C. CHATURVEDI v. U.0.1. 
645 
Act, 1988) it was suggested that a departmental enquiry may be initiated 
A 
against the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant was charged for violating 
various conduct rules and for misconduct. 
On inquiry, the Inquiry Ollicer found the charges against the appel-
lant as having been proved. The appellant was thereafter dismissed from 
service after consultation with the UPSC. The Administrative Tribunal 
upheld the recording of the Inquiry Ollker that the charges had been 
proved but converted the order of dismissal from service into that of 
compulsory retirement keeping in view the length of service of the appel-
lant, the academic record of the appellant, the fact that he was promoted 
even after the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated and that it would 
be dillicult for the appellant to get a new job or take up a new profession 
at his stage. 
Being aggrieved by that part of the order of Administrative Tribunal 
which confirmed dismissal of the appellant from the service, the appellant 
B 
c 
preferred appeal before this Court contending that : 
D 
(a) possession of assets disproportionate to the known source of 
income is not "misconduct" under the Civil Services (Classification and 
Control) Appeal Rules, 1965 : 
(b) there was abnormal delay in laying the charges; 
(c) the appellant was promoted as Assistant C.ommissioner of In-
come of Tax pending enquiry and therefore, no departmental action could 
be taken against him; 
( d) the order of dismissal is bad in view· of the judgment of the 
Supreme Court in Unioll of llldia & 01:1-. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khall, [1991] 1 
sec 588; as admittedly the enquiry report was never supplied to the . 
appellant; and 
E 
F 
(e) in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in ](Jislmanand v. G 
State of M.P., [1977] 1 SCC 816; ten percent of the disproportionate assets 
ought to have been deducted. 
The Union of India also filed an appeal before this Court contending 
that the Tribunal had erred in changing the punishment awarded to the 
appellant from dismissal into compulsory retirement. 
H 
646 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal of the appellant and allowing the appeal of 
B 
the Union of India, this Court 
HELD: Per Ramaswami J, (for himself mid Jeevan Reddy, J.) 
1.1. Judicial Review is not an.appeal fron1 a decision but a review of 
the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is 
meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to 
ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily 
correct in eye of the Court. [655-D] 
C 
1.2. When an inquiry is conducted on the charge of misconduct by a 
public servant, 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.