PRINCIPAL SECY. GOVT. OF A.P. AND ANR. versus M. ADINARAYANA

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 115 · Decided: 06-10-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

PRINCIPAL SECY. GOVT. OF A.P. AND ANR. 
A 
v 
M. ADINARA Y ANA 
OCTOBER 6, 2004 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
B 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Section 13(2), 13(J)(e)-Andhra 
Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960-Section 
4-Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, C 
1989-Rule 3(1)-Misconduct-Possession of assets disproportionate to known 
sources of income-Held, the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings has the 
jurisdiction to try all matters involving misconduct. 
Andhra Pradesh Disciplinary Amendment Act, 1993-Rule 2H-Andhra 
Pradesh Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1991-Rule 2B, Rule 9-acquisition or D 
disposal of movable or immovable property by Government Servant-
Requirement of prior information necessary-Held, non-compliance of 
requirement amounts to violation of conduct rules. 
Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal-Jurisdiction of-Held, it 
cannot sit in ·appeal over the findings of the enquiry authority-Power of E 
judicial review cannot extend to the re-examination of evidence. 
The Anti-Corruption Bureau registered a case against the 
Respondent under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(l)(e) of the 
Prevention of Corruption Aci, 1988 with regard to the disproportionate 
assets possessed by the respondent and investigated into the case. In his F 
report to the Government, the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau 
recommended for referring the case to the Tribunal for Disciplinary 
Proceedings, for enquiry into the allegations of acquisition of assets 
disproportionate to the known sources of his income and also the violation 
of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and to submit a G 
report to the Government. The Tribunal submitted its report finding the 
respondent guilty under both the charges framed against him. The 
Government after considering the report of the Tribunal issued a show 
case notice to the respondent. 
115 
H 
116 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
The respondent's challenge to the show cause notice was dismissed. 
The High Court granted liberty to the charged officer to raise all 
objections as to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as also other issues before 
the Government in response to the show cause notice. Respondent 
submitted his explanation to the memo with regard to the jurisdiction of 
B the Tribunal and submitted his reply on merits. 
The Government issued orders removing the respondent herein from 
service. The Respondent challenged his removal on the ground that the 
Tribunal has no jurisdiction to enquire into Charge-I and Charge-II which 
was defective in nature and, accordingly, sought to quash the orders of 
C the Government. The Tribunal set aside the disciplinary orders of the 
Government. The Government's Writ Petition was dismissed. 
Before this Court, appellants, contended that the charged officer, the 
respondent herein, was removed from service by the Government as a 
disciplinary measure and that the possession of assets disproportionate to 
D the known sources of income by the respondent, is a misconduct as defined 
under Rule 2(b) of the Conduct Rules framed under the proviso to Article 
309 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the Tribunal for 
Disciplinary Proceedings (in short 'TDP') had jurisdiction to enquire into 
the misconduct in terms of the TDP Act and the Rules made thereunder, 
thatthe opinion of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT) 
E that the TDP had no jurisdiction to enquire into the first charge which 
falls under the Prevention of Corruption Act and which is a graver offence 
than the routine misconduct under the Conduct Rules is erroneous, that 
the respondent has not taken the objection regarding jurisdiction at the 
earliest opportunity and since the charged officer generally raised such 
p objections, the Tribunal was not justified in entertaining that plea. That 
under the TDP Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the TDP is a fact 
finding authority and that the findings recorded by the TDP could not 
have been upset by the Tribunal,in as much as the Administrative Tribunal 
has no such power, that the Administrative Tribunal is not an appellate 
authority and, therefore, it could not have acted as an appellate al.1thority 
G over the findings recorded by the TDP and accepted by the Government 
and that the charged officer has acquired such assets which included both 
immovable and movable properti

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