LexTHE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU versus D. SUBRAMANYAM RAJADEVAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU A v .. D. SUBRAMANYAM RATADEVAN JULY 9, 1996 [S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.] Constitution of India, A1ticle 309---Tami! Nadu Civil Services (Clas- sification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1953, R. 17, 2 .... Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplina1y Proceedings Tribunal) Rules 1955, R.8-Disciplinmy proceedin~ase of corruption against Government Servant-Proce- dure-Procedure prescribed in R.8 of the Disciplina1y Proceedings Rules, which are special Rules applicable in conuption cases, has to be followed B c and not the procedure prescdbed in Rule 17 of the Civil Se1vice Rules ... No such principle o1 · natural justice that before deciding to hold a regular deparlmental inquiry, disciplinary authority has to first hold a preliminary D inqui1y by drawing up a charge-n1enio and call for the tv1itten statentent-Ser- vice Law. Some complaints regarding corruption and misconduct against a Government Servant were made to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti· Corruption, Madras. The Directorate investigated the complaints and filed its report to the Government. After examining the report, Govern· ment referred the case to the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal framed three charges and communicated the same to the Respon· dent. The Respondent approached the Tamil nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the charge-memo on the grounds of delay, vagueness E F and breach of the requirement of Rule 17 of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (1953). The Administrative Tribunal c1uashed the charge memo on the ground that the charges were G required to be formulated by the Disciplinary Authority as required by R.17 of the Civil Service Rules. It also held that the substantive provisions of Rule 17 of the Civil Service Rules in regard to the function and powers of the disciplinary authority cannot be taken away from such authority by the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceeding Tribunal) Rules, 1955 which relate only to the inquiry which is only a component of the H 385. 386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A proceedings under Rule 17 of the Civil Services Rules and directed the Government to re-examine the case and if necessary to pursue the matter further to formulate the charges, get the written statement of the defence, to examine the case in the light of the written statement, documentary evidence and oral evidence available in support of the charges and to B decide whether the case should be referred to the Disciplinary Tribunal. Hence, this appeal. The llppellant challenged the view taken by the Tribunal and con- tended that the Tribunal has misconstrued the Civil Service Rules and the Disciplinary Proceedings Rules. Once the Government finds that it is a C case involving corruption and decide to proceed departmentally against the Government servant that the said case has to be referred to the Disciplinary Tribunal. In such a case, the procedure prescribed by the Disciplinary Proceedings Rules is to be followed and not the procedure prescribed by the Civil Service Rules. D Allowing the appeal, this Court: HELD 1.1. As both the, Civil Service Rules and Disciplinary Proceed- ings Rules, have been framed in exercises of the powers conferred on the Government by Article 309 of the Constitution of India, they have equal E force of law. A comparison of the rules clearly reveals that the Civil Service Rules are general rules applicable in all ty!_)es of cases, whereas the Disciplinary Proceedings Rules are special rules applicable in cases of corruption by Government-servants and in respect of all those disciplinary cases in 'vhich the Government proposes to revise the original orders passed on the charges of corruption. [393-D-E] F 1.2. The Trihunal has clearly misconstrued the nature and scope of Rule 17 of the Civil Service Rules and failed to appreciate that Rule 17 does not deal with the powers of the disciplinary authority to punish the delinquent Government servant, but only provides the procedure for the G cases \Vhere it is proposed to impose a penalty on such Government servant. [393-F] 2. The Tribunal also failed to consider the effect of Rule 2 of the Civil Service Rules, which provides that the Civil Service Rules shall not apply to the extent it is otherwise expressly provided by or under any other law H for the time being in force or in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.