LexUNION OF INDIA ETC. versus PARMA NAND ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UNION OF INDIA ETC. v. PARMA NAND ETC. MARCH 14, 1989 [K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, A.M. AHMADI AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: Section 14-16, 27-29. A B Disciplinary proceedings-Inquiry-Penalty imposed by Compe- tent Authority-Punjab Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1966- C Administrative Tribunal-Jurisdiction of-Whether could modify penalty on the ground that it is excessive or disproportionate to the misconduct proved. Constitution of India, 1950: Article 31/(2)(a): Civil Servant- Conviction on a Criminal Charge-Penalty imposed by competent D authority-Administrative Tribunal-Jurisdiction of-Whether can examine adequacy of penalty. Article 136: Supreme Court's jurisdiction-Is equitable-Supreme Court can modify the penalty imposed by Competent Authority-High Court or Tribunal has no such jurisdiction. E Words and Phrases: "All Courts'-Meaning of. The respondent, in the appeal, was in-charge of preparing the pay bills of the employees of the Beas Sutlej Link Project. He, along with other two employees, was charged with the fraudulent act of withdrawal F of Rs.238.90 by preparing a bogus pay bill and identity card in the name of a fictitions person. An enquiry was conducted against all the three employees under the Punjab Government Servants Conduct Rnles, 1966 and the Inquiry Officer found all the three guilty of the charge framed against each of them. The competent authority accepted the findings of the Inquiry Officer and after giving an opportunity of G being heard imposed the penalty of dismissal on the respondent. Minor penalty of with-holding two or three future inuements was imposed on each of the other two employees. The respondent challenged the finding of the Inquiry Officer as well as the order of dismissal by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Subsequently the writ stood transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal under the H 19 20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 2 S.C.R. A provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The Tribunal agreed with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer to the effect that the respondent was guilty of the charge but modified the punish- ment by reducing the punishment of dismissal imposed to that of stop- ping his five increments on the ground that the respondent was measured with a different yardstick than the other two employees. B Against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal appeals were filed before this Court; (a) by the Union oflndia contending that the tribunal has no powers to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority on the ground that it is disproportionate to the proved misde-· meanour, and (b) by the respondent seeking a complete exoneration from the charge. c While allowing the appeal of the Union and dismissing the Special Leave Petition of the respondent the Court set aside the order of the Tribunal, and, HELD: 1. Under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunal D Act, 1985 the powers of the High Courts under Article 226, in so far as they are exercisable in relation to service matters stand conferred on the Tribunal established under the Act. The powers of other ordinary civil C onrts in relation to service matters to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognisance either expressly or impliedly barred also stand conferred on the Tribunal. The Act thus excludes the E jurisdiction, power and authority of all Courts except the Supreme Court and confers the same on the Tribunal in relation to recruitment and service matters. The Tribunal is just a substitute to the civil Court and High Court. The Tribunal thus could exercise only such powers which the civil Court or the High Court could have exercised by way of judicial review. It is neither less nor more. [27D-E; 288-C] F S.P. Sampat Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., [1987] l S.C.C. 124 referred to; 2. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disci- plinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate G . jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findi.,gs of the Inquiry Officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. The power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent wit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.