N. RAJARATHINAM versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 593 · Decided: 06-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

N. RAJARATHINAM 
A 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 6, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
B 
Service Law : 
Dismissal from servic~Assistant Commissioner of Commercial 
Tax-Cliarge of conUption-Enquiry held-Except one witness all other wit-
C 
nesses tumed hostile-Order of dismissaHJpheld by Tribunal on the ground 
that evidence of PW I and other evidence on record were sufficient to dismiss 
him from service-On appeal held if alt relevant facts and circumsta11ces and 
evidence 011 record are taken into consideration and it is found that the 
evidence establishes misco11duct against a public servant, the disciplinary 
authority is pe1fectly empowered to take appropriate decision as to the nature D 
of the findings and impose necessary punishment. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 19334 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.2.96 of the Tamil Nadu E 
Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A. No. 2152 of 1991. 
Ambrish Kumar for the Petitioner. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Delay condoned. 
This special leave petition has been filed against an order of the 
Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribuna~ Madras Bench, made on February 
F 
26, 1996 in 
OA No. 2152 of 1991. The petitioner, while working as 
Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taices, demanded and accepted G 
illegal gratification. Consequently, he was suspended from service on Oc-
tober 1, 1995. An enquiry into the charges was conducted by the Tribunal 
for disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal recommended dismissal of the 
petitioner from service on the basis of the finding that the preponderance 
of evidence established that petitioner had demanded and accepted illegal H 
593 
594 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A gratification from PW-1 (Shammugasundaram). Accepting the report, the 
disciplinary authority, by its order dated January 6, 1989, dismissed the 
petitioner from.service. The petitioner then filed OA in the Tribunal. In 
the first instance, the Tribunal allowed the petition. Subsequently, when an 
appeal was filed in this Court, this Court by its order dated September 8, 
B 1995 set aside the Tribunal's order and held that the Tribunal is not a fact 
finding authority and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is such matters is well 
settled. It was also held that Administrative Member cannot alone decide 
the matter. After the matter was remitted to the Tribunal, it held that 
though other witnesses had turned hostile, the evidence of PW-1 other 
evidence on record was found to be sufficient to dismiss the petitioner from 
C 
servic_e. Accor~ingly, the Tribunal has upheld the order of dismissal from 
service. Thus, this special leave. 
I! 
1 
Mr. Ambrish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has con-
tended that as many as 17 witnesses examined by the Government to prove 
D the charges of <;!emand and acceptance, have turned hostile and they were 
.declared hostile by the prosecution. The solitary evid::nce by PW-1, chronic 
defaulter in payment of sales tax, is without corroboration on material 
particulars and is not sufficient for order of dismissal of the petitioner from 
service. We find no fon:e in the contention. Admittedly, the Evidence Act 
E 
has no application for the disciplinary proceedings. The report of the 
Tribunal was material before the disciplinary authority to take action in 
accordance with law. It is true that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Com-
mission had recommended to take a lenient view in the matter but the 
Government had not accepted the recommendation. The view of the Public 
Service Commission being only recommendatory, the Government was not 
F 
bound to accept the recommendation made by the Public Service Commis-
sion. Taking all the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Govern-
ment had accepted the finding of the Tribunal that preponderance of 
probabilities did establish that the petitioner had demanded and accepted 
illegal gratification from PW-1 and thereby the committed misconduct 
G rightly leading to dismissal from service. This finding having been based 
upon the evidence of PW-1, it cannot be said that the findings is based 
upon no evidence. It is for the disciplinary authority to take into considera-
tion all the relevant facts and circumstances. If all the relevant facts and 
circumstances and the evidence on record are taken into consideration and 
it is found that the evidence establishes misconduct agains

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