THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD versus B. ASHOK KUMAR

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1058 · Decided: 28-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
B 
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 
TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, 
HYDERABAD 
v. 
B. ASHOK KUMAR 
APRIL 28, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
C 
Service Law : 
Dismissal-Inspector of Police---Ozarge of accepting illegal gratifica-
tioll-Disciplinary inquiry conducted-Dismissed from service-A.P. Ad-
ministrative Tribunal found charge to have been proved, but directed 
government to reconsider imposition of penalty of stoppage of three incre-
D ments-Held, imposition of penalty is right of disciplinary authority consis-
tent with magnitude and misconduct imputed-Tribunal has 110 power to 
direct the Government to reconsider the matter-Order of dismissal stands 
confirmed. 
E 
B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, [1995] 6 SCC 749, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3510 of 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.4.96 of the Andhra Pradesh 
F Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in 0.A. No. 4297 of 1995. 
G. Prabhakar for the Appellant. 
L.N. Rao, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, V.S. Reddy, S.U.K. Sagar and D. 
Bharti Reddy for the Respondent. 
G 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
The respondent was imputed with a charge that he demanded and 
H accepted a sum of Rs. 3,000 as illegal gratification for refraining from 
1058 
GOVERNMENT OF AP. v. B. ASHOKKUMAR 
1059 
registering a complaint in respect of the bribe given, against whom criminal A 
prosecution was to be initiated. The matter was referred to the Tribunal 
for disciplinary proceedings which after enquiry submitted its report on 
July, 20, 1994, holding that the charge against the respondent had been 
proved and he was guilty of the charge. However, it recommended to 
impose the penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. 
The Government after consideration of the evidence found that the recom-
mendation was not correct proper and that major penalty was required to 
be given. Accordingly, show cause notice, together, with copy of the report, 
B 
was issued for imposing punishment of dismissal from service and the 
respondent submitted his reply. The Government after considering the 
entire material came to the conclusion that the respondent deserved to be C 
dismissed from service. Accordingly, order, viz., G.O.Ms. No. 238 Home 
(SCA) dated July 28, 1995 dismissing him from service was issued. On the 
0.A having been filed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal while accepting 
that the charge had been proved was of the view that the Government 
should reconsider the question of imposition of the penalty of stoppage of D 
three increments. Thus, this appeal by special leave against the order of 
Tribunal made on April 23, 1996 in O.A. No. 4297. 
Shri L.N. Rao, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the 
Tribunal in disciplinary proceedings had opined that the evidence of the 
witness was weak and, therefore, it felt like holding that the charge of 
E 
imposing penalty of stoppage of three increments would meet the end of 
justice. In view of the finding given by the Tribunal, that imposition of the 
penalty of dismissal from service shook the conscience of the Tribunal, it 
does not warrant interference. We find no force in the contention. It is now 
legal settled position that imposition of the penalty is the right of the 
p 
disciplinary authority consistent with the magnitude and the misconduct 
imputed and the evidence in support thereof. The Tribunal in disciplinary 
proceedings found as a fact that the respondent demanded and accepted 
illegal gratification of Rs. 3,000 for not prosecuting the offender. Since the 
respondent 
is an Inspector of Police, a higher ranking officer, if he 
demands and accepts illegal gratification and restrains himself from initiat-
G 
ing prosecution against the offender, it would have an effect on the main-
tenance of law and order in the society. Therefore, the finding of the 
Tribunal that it shook its conscience is unsustainable. We have seen that 
the Tribunal has no power to direct the appellant to reconsider the matter. 
This Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, [1995] 6 SCC 749 has held H 
1060 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997] 3 S.C.R. 
A that the Tribunal has the power to direct the punishment, imposed by the 
disciplinary authority. 
B 
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the Tribunal stands 
set aside. As a result, the order of the Government stands confirmed. No. 
costs.

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