GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. versus A. RAJAPANDIAN

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 707 · Decided: 24-10-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. 
v. 
A. RAJAPANDIAN 
OCTOBER 24, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Service Law-Disciplinary Proceedings-Administrative Tribunal not 
empowered to re-appreciate evidence recorded by inquiring authority. 
A 
B 
Respondent joined service as Sub Inspector Police. Disciplinary C 
proceedings were held against him on three charges. The charges were 
found proved against the respondent and as a consequence he was dis· 
missed from service. The order was challenged. The Administrative 
Tribunal set aside the dismissal order solely on re-appreciation of the 
evi!lence recorded by the inquiring authority and reaching the conclusion D 
that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the charges against the 
respondent. This appeal by Special leave challenged the order of the 
Administrative Tribunal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
E 
HELD : The Administrative Tribunal fell into patent error in re-ap· 
predating and going into the sufficiency of evidence. It has been authorita· 
lively settled that the Administrative Tribunal cannot sit as a Court of 
Appeal over a decision based on the findings of the inquiring authority in 
disciplinary proceedings. Where there is some relevant material which the F 
disciplinary authority has accepted and which material reasonably sup· 
port the conclusions reached by the disciplinary authority, it is not the 
function of the Administrative Tribunal to review the same and reach a 
different finding than that of the disciplinary authority. The Administra· 
live Tribunal, in this case, has found no fault with the proceedings held by G 
the inquiring authority. It has quashed the dismissal order by re-ap-
preciating the evidence and reaching a finding different than that of the 
inquiring authority. The Tribunal fell into patent error and acted wholly 
beyond its jurisdiction. The impugned order of the Administrative 
Tribunal is set aside. Order dismissing the respondent from the police 
service is upheld. (709-G-H, 710-A·B, 712-B, 713-B] 
H 
707 
708 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur, [1972] 2 SCR 218 and Union of 
India v. Parma Nand, [1989] 2 SCR 19, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6964 of 
1994. 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.9.91 of the Tamil Nadu 
c 
D 
Administrafive Tribunal, Madras in T.A. No. 1256 of 1989. 
Mrs. Aruna Mathur for the Appellants. 
S. Srinivasan for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KULDIP SINGH, J. Delay condoned. 
Special leave granted. 
A. j\ajapandian, respondent in the appeal herein, joined service as 
Sub Inspector Police in the State of Tamil Nadu. He was promoted to the 
post of Inspector in the year 1977. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceed-
ings, Madras, held inquiry against him on three charges out of five framed 
E against him. Jn the departmental inquiry the Tribunal found the three 
charges proved against the respondent and as a consequence he was 
dismissed from service by the order dated February 7, 1984. He challenged 
the order by way of writ petition before the Madras High Court. The writ 
petition was subsequently transferred to the Tamil Nadu Administrative 
Tribunal. The Administrative Tribunal by its order dated September 4, 
F 
1991 allo~ed the transfer petition and set aside the dismissal order. This 
appeal by the State of Tamil Nadu is against the order of the Administra-
tive Tribunal. 
The Administrative Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal solely 
G on re-appreciation of the evidence recorded by the inquiring authority and 
reaching the conclusion that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the 
charges against the respondent. We have no hesitation in holding at the 
outset that the Administrative Tribunal fell into patent error in re-ap-
preciating and going into the sufficiency of evidence. It has been authorita-
tively settjed by string of authorities of this Court that the administrative 
H Tribunal cannot sit as ~ Court of Appeal over a decision based on the 
GOVT.OFT.N. v. A RAJAPANDIAN [KULDIP SINGH,J.] 
709 
findings of the inquiring authority in disciplinary proceedings. Wl:tere A 
there is some relevant material which the disciplinary authority has ac-
cepted and which material reasonably support the conclusion reached by 
the disciplinary authority, it is not the function of the Administrative 
Tribunal to review the same and reach different finding than that of t

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