LexSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. versus S. SUBRAMANIAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. v. S. SUBRAMANIAM JANUARY 24, 1996 B [K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] ,. S e1vice Law : , c Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Control & Appeal) Rules : Rule 23(i)-D~puty Tehsilda1-Illegal gratification-Trap cas~En- qui1y--Charges proved-Removal from servic~Appeal dismissed-In appeal T1ibunal reappreciated evidence and held that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification not satisfactmily proved-It set aside the order of D removal from service-On appeal held, when conclusion reached by the autho1ity is based on evidence T1ibunal devoid of power to reappreciate. ' - evidence and to conic to its own conclusion on the proof of the charge-Hence its order set aside. c B.C. Chatwvedi v. Union of India, JT (1995) 8 SC 65; State of Tamil Nadu v. T. V. Venugopalan, [1994) 6 SCC 302; Union of India v. Upendra Singh, [1994) 3 SCC 357; Govenunel!t of Tamil Nadu & Anr. v.A. Rajapan- dian, [1995) 1 SCC 216 and Union of India v. B.S. Chatwvedi, [1995] 6 SCC 749, relied on. , I F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2864 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.91 of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras in T.A. No. 1315 of 1989. G A. M ariarputham and Mrs. Aruna Mathur for the Appellants. A.V. Rangam and A. R~nganadhan for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered : H Leave granted. 968 -· STATE v. S. SUBRAMANIAM 969 This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Administra- tive Tribunal dated 12.2.1992 made in T.A. No. 1315/89 (Writ Petition No. 2050/84) transferred ffom the Madras High Court after constitution of the Administrative Tribunal with jurisdiction over disputes with respect to recruitment and conditions of the service of the employees of the Tamil Nadu etc. The Tribunal in its order dated 12.2.1992 set aside the order of removal from service of the respondent on September 30, 1983 on the finding that merely reproducing the views of the Commission and a cer- tification that the matter has been examined does not constitute a proper statutory order complying with requirements of rule 23 (i) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Control & Appeal) Rules (for short, 'the Rules'). The facts not in dispute are as under : A B c The respondent while working as a Deputy Tehsildar, Palani along with Revenue Inspector was charged to have acted, by corrupt motive, demanded and accepted illegal gratification from Thiru Veluchamy, son of Thim Achara Naicker, Perumalnaichenvalasu Village Palai Taluk. Pur- D suant thereto, Veluchamy paid a sum of Rs. 50 to the respondent and Rs.20 to the Revenue Inspector for effecting mutation of the name of the com- plainant in revenue records. The complainant was serving in the army. During the holidays when he came to his native place, he and his brother effected partition of their properties. Jn furtherance thereof, he sought mutation of his name in the entries in the revenue record of the lands that fell to his share. For the said purpose, he repeatedly approached the Revenue Inspector for effecting mutation who had stated that he required certain payments to be made which he had complied with and amount was paid. He also demanded that Tehsildar required Rs. 50. When the com- plainant approached the respondent, the latter directed him to do whatever the Revenue Inspector directed him to do. In other words, the complaint is that on demand by the respondent of illegal gratification to discharge official duty and on his direction he paid the same to the Revenue Inspec- tor who had received on his behalf. The complaint in that behalf was also E F laid with the Anti-Corruption Bureau and the trap was laid on the Revenue G Inspector and he was caught. On the basis of the above evidence, charges were framed in a detailed manner, enquiry was conducted and opportunity abo was given to the respondent to defend himself in the enquiry. After examination of the evidence, the disciplinary authority came to the con- clusion that the charge was proved. Accordingly, a show cause notice was is.,ued to him. On consideration of the reply to show cause notice, the H 970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R. A respondent was removed from the service. The appeal was dismissed. After the Tribunal was constituted, the pending writ petition along with all other service cases were transferred to the Tribunal. B c The Tribunal appr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.