http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: MINISTRY OF FINANCE & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: S.B. RAMESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/02/1998

BENCH: K. VENKATASWAMI, A.P. MISRA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T K.Venkataswami. J.      The  appellants   impugn  the   order  of  the  Central Administrative Tribunal,  Hyderabad Bench,  dated 9.8.94  in O.A. No. 27/94.      Before proceeding  to consider  the issues,  we want to observe the following:      This Court  while granting  special leaven  on  28.2.95 expedited the hearing of the appeal and directed the counsel to complete  the paper  books within  ten weeks. In spite of passing of  nearly three  years after the leave was granted, no steps  have been taken to complete the paper books and we have to  go only  by order of the Tribunal. In the SLP paper book, only  a copy  of the  judgment of  the Tribunal, apart from the  special Leave  Petition and  the Counter Affidavit filed by the appellant before the Tribunal. Is available and no other  documents were  included. Hence, leave was granted by this  Court to  complete the  paper book.  Even then  the appellants did not care to avail the opportunity.      Now on merits.      The respondent  in this appeal was working as an Income Tax Officer,  Group ‘B’,  during the relevant period. He was proceeded departmentally  by  filing  a  charge-sheet  dated 7.5.87  for   alleged  irregularities   in  the   income-tax assessment. For  reasons with  which we  are not  concerned, that was  not pursued  after certain  stage  dater  on,  the respondent  was   served  with  another  charge-sheet  dated 25.3.88. The article of charge reads as follows:-      "Shri  S.B.   Ramesh.  Income   Tax      Officer.  Group-B.  Andhra  Pradesh      (now    under    suspension)    has      contracted a  second marriage  with      Smt. K.R.  Aruna  while  his  first      wife. Smt. Anusuya is alive and the      first   marriage   has   not   been      dissolved. By  this act,  Shri S.B.      Ramesh has  violated Rule  21(3) of      CCS (Conduct)  Rules. 1964.  In any      case, Shri  S.B.  Ramesh  has  been      living with  Smt. K.R.Aruna and has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

    children by  her. Thereby Shri S.B.      Ramesh  has   exhibited  a  conduct      unbecoming of  a Government servant      and has  accordingly violated  rule      3(1) (iii)  of the  CCS   (Conduct)      Rules 1964."      As the  respondent denied  the charge,  an Enquiry  was conducted in  which the  respondent did not participate. The Report of  the Enquiry  Officer was  to the effect the first part of  the charge  was not proved and that the second part of the  charge, namely,  that the respondent, by living with Smt. K.R.  Aruna and  having children  by her,  Exhibited  a conduct unbecoming  of a  Government servant  violating Rule 3(1) (iii)  of CCS  (Conduct) Rules,  1964 was  established. This report  of the  Enquiry Officer  was  accepted  by  the Disciplinary Authority,  who  by  his  order  dated  23.4.92 imposed on  him the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. Aggrieved  by that,  the  respondent  preferred  an appeal on 4.6.92 which was kept pending without disposal for an unduly  long time which obliged the respondent to file an application before   the Tribunal challenging the punishment of compulsory retirement.      Before the  Tribunal,  the  respondent  challenged  the order  of  compulsory  retirement  by  contending  that  the Enquiry has  not been  held unconformity with the principles of  natural  justice,  that  the  findings  of  the  Enquiry Authority, which were acceded by the Disciplinary Authority, were all  absolutely perverse  and based  on no evidence and that sub-rule (18) of rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules was not complied with.  It also appears that the respondent raised a preliminary point  before the  Tribunal contending  that his conduct, which  has no relation to the discharge of official duties, cannot  form a basis for departmental proceedings to charge him  under rule  3(1)(iii) of the Conduct Rules. This as without  merit in  the light of a judgment of this  Court in Govinda Menon Vs, Union of India (AIR 1967 SC 1274).      The argument  advanced  on  behalf  of  the  appellants before the  Tribunal were  to the  effect that all resonable opportunity was given to the delinquent officer and all rule shave been  followed and  complied with.  According  to  the learned counsel for the Department, the findings rendered by the Enquiry Officer, accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, were all based on evidence and, therefore, well-founded.      The Tribunal,  on a  consideration of the pleadings and documents placed  before it,  found that  the findings  were rendered on  surmises and  presumptions  and  the  documents marked as  exhibits were  not properly  proved and  the non- examination of  Smt. Aruna was also fatal to the case of the prosecution. The  Tribunal was  aware of  the  well  settled position  that   the  degree   of  proof   required  in  the departmental disciplinary  proceedings need  not be  of  the same  standard   as  the   degree  of   proof  required  for establishing the  guilt of  an accused  in a  criminal case. However, the Tribunal found that there was a total dearth of evidence to  bring  home  the  charge  that  the  delinquent Officer  has  been  living  in  a  manner  unbecoming  of  a Government servant  or  that  he  has  exhibited  adulterous conduct  by  living  with  Smt.  K.R.  Aruna  and  begetting children. On  that basis  the Tribunal  set aside  the order impugned  before   it,  namely,   the  order  of  compulsory retirement of  the delinquent  officer. The  Tribunal  could have rested  its decision  on the basis of the conclusion as set out  above. Instead  the Tribunal,  purporting  to  give additional reason, inter alia, observed as follows:-      "Though it would be ideal if sexual

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

    relationship is  confined to  legal      wedlock, there  is no  law  in  our      country    which    makes    sexual      relationship is  confined to  legal      wedlock, there  is no  law  in  our      country    which    makes    sexual      relationship    of     two    adult      individuals   of   different   sex.      unlawful unless the relationship is      adulterous or promiscuous. If a man      and woman  are residing  under  the      same roof  and if  there is  no law      prohibiting such  a residence, what      transpires between  them is  not  a      concern of  their employer.  Such a      life, if  accepted by  the  society      at large,  without any  displeasure      or grudge,  then it  cannot be said      that there  is any  moral turpitude      involved in  their living  in  this      case, there  is  no  case  that  on      amount of the applicant living with      Smt.  K.R.  Aruna,  his  reputation      among the  general public  has been      lowered or  that,  the  public  has      been looking down on his conduct as      immoral  one,  Therefore,  even  if      factually, the  allegation that the      applicant who is already married to      another woman  is living  with Smt.      KR Aruna  is proved  to be true, we      are of  the considered  view, that,      that  alone   will  not  justify  a      finding  that   the  applicant   is      guilty  of   misconduct   deserving      departmental       action       and      punishment."      Immediately we  prefer to  record our total disapproval with the  above observations  of the Tribunal. We propose to deal with and rest our decision on the merits with reference to the findings of the Tribunal rendered on the basis of the facts relating to the case.      Against the  order of  the Tribunal which set aside the punishment of  compulsory retirement,  this appeal  has been filed.      The learned counsel appearing for the appellants placed strong reliance  on the  latter part  of the judgment of the Tribunal,    extracted     above,    which     related    to additional/alternative reason  given by  the Tribunal to its decision. We  have already  expressed our disapproval to the later part of the judgment of the Tribunal.      We must observe that no serious attempt was made by the learned counsel for the appellants to attack the findings of the Tribunal rendered in the first part of the judgment. The respondent. who  appeared in  person. presented  his case by pointing out  the portions  of in  the  first  part  of  the judgment  of  the  Tribunal  and  also  placed  his  written arguments.      It is  necessary to set out the portions from the order of the  Tribunal which  gave the  reasons  to  come  to  the conclusion that  the order of the Disciplinary Authority was based on  no evidence  and the  findings were  perverse. The Tribunal, after  extracting full  the evidence  of SW-1. the only witness  examined on  the side  of the prosecution. and after extracting also the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

dated 18.6.91. observed as follows:-      "After   these    proceedings    on      18.6.91 on  the Enquiry Officer has      only received the brief from the PO      and then finalised the report. This      shows that  the Enquiry Officer has      not  attempted   to  question   the      applicant on the evidence appearing      against  him   in  the  proceedings      dated 18.6.91. Under Sub-Rule 18 of      Rule 14  of the CCS (CCA) Rules. It      is   incumbent   on   the   Enquiry      authority to  question the  officer      facing the  charge, broadly  on the      evidence appearing against him in a      case where  the  officer  does  not      offer himself  for  examination  as      witness. This  mandatory  provision      of the   CCS  (CCA) Rules  has been      lost  sight   of  by   the  Enquiry      authority. The  learned counsel for      the  respondents   argued  as   the      applicant   did   not   appear   in      response  to  notice.  It  was  not      possible for  the Enquiry authority      to  question  the  applicant.  This      argument has  no force  because. on      18.6.91 when  the inquiry  was held      for  recording  the  evidence    in      support of  the charge, even if the      Enquiry   officer   has   set   the      applicant ex-parte and recorded the      evidence, he  should have adjourned      the  hearing  to  another  date  to      enable the applicant to participate      in the enquiry hereafter/or even if      the  inquiry   authority  did   not      choose to  give  the  applicant  an      opportunity  to  cross-examine  the      witness examined  in support of the      charge, he  should  have  given  an      opportunity  to  the  applicant  to      appear  and   then   proceeded   to      question him  under sub-rule  18 of      Rule 14  of CCs  (CCA)  Rules.  The      omission to  do this  is a  serious      error  committed   by  the  enquiry      authority. Secondly, we notice that      the enquiry authority has marked as      many as  7 documents  in support of      the charge.  while SW-1  has proved      only  one   document:  namely,  the      statement  of   Smt.   K.R.   Aruna      alleged to  have been  recorded  in      his   presence.   How   the   other      documents were received in evidence      are not  explained  either  in  the      report of  the Enquiry authority or      in the  proceedings.  Even  if  the      documents which were produced along      with  the  charge  sheet  were  all      taken on  record. unless  and until      the  applicant  had  requested  the      Enquiry  officer  to  mark  certain      documents in  evidence on his side.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

    the  enquiry   authority   had   no      jurisdiction in  marking all  those      documents which  he had  called for      the purpose of defending himself on      the side  of the applicant while he      has not  requested  for  making  of      these documents  on his side. It is      seen that  some of  these documents      which is  marked on the side of the      defence not  at the instance of the      applicant. has  been made use of by      the enquiry  authority to  reach  a      finding against the applicant. This      has   been    accepted    by    the      disciplinary authority also. We are      of the considered view that this is      absolutely   irregular    and   has      prejudiced   the    case   of   the      applicant. These  documents,  which      were not  proved in accordance with      law should  nor have  been received      in evidence and that, any inference      drawn  from   these  documents   is      misplaced and  opposed to  law,  we      further  find   that  the   enquiry      authority   as    well   as,    the      disciplinary authority  have freely      made use  of the  statement alleged      to have  been made by the statement      alleged to have been made by Smt Kr      Aruna in the presence of SW1 and it      was on that basis that they reached      the conclusion  the  applicant  was      living with  Smt.  K.R.  Aruna  and      that, he  was the father of the two      children on  Smt. K.R.  Aruna.  The      S.W.1 in  his deposition  which  is      extracted above,  has not spoken to      the  details   contained   in   the      statement of Smt. K.R. Aruna  which      was marked  as Ex.1.  Further it is      settled  law   that  any  statement      recorded  behind   the  back  of  a      person can  be made  use of against      him  in  a  proceeding  unless  the      person who  is said  to  have  made      that statement  is  made  available      for cross-examination, to prove his      or her  veracity. The  disciplinary      authority has  not even  chosen  to      include Smt. K.R. Aruna in the list      of witnesses  for offering  her for      being  cross-examined  for  testing      the  veracity   of  the   documents      exhibited at  Ex.1 veracity  of the      documents exhibited  at Ex.1  which      is  said   to  be   her  statement.      Therefore, we have no hesitation in      coming to  the conclusion  that the      enquiry authority  as well  as, the      disciplinary  authority  have  gone      wrong in  placing reliance  on Ex.1      which is  the alleged  statement of      Smt. K.R.  Aruna  without  offering      Smt. K.R.  Aruna as  a witness  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

    cross-examination. The  applicant’s      case  is  that  the  statement  was      recorded under  coercion and duress      and  the   finding  based  on  this      statement       is       absolutely      unsustainable as  the same  is  not      based on  legal evidence. The other      documents relied  on by the Enquiry      authority,  as   well  as   by  the      disciplinary authority for reaching      the conclusion  that the  applicant      and Smt.  K.R.  Aruna  were  living      together     and  that   they  have      begotten two   children  have  also      been not  proved in  the manner  in      which  they   are  required  to  be      proved."      Then. again after extracting the relevant portions from the disciplinary authority’s order, the Tribunal observed as follows:-      "We have  extracted the  fore-going      portions  from  the  order  of  the      disciplinary  authority   for   the      purpose of  demonstrating that  the      disciplinary authority  has  placed      reliance on  a  statement  of  Smt.      K.R. Aruna.  without examining Smt.      K.R. Aruna.  without examining Smt.      Aruna as  a witness  in the inquiry      and  also   on   serval   documents      collected  from  somewhere  without      establishing    the    authenticity      thereof to  come to  a finding that      the applicant has conducted himself      in  a   manner  unbecoming   of   a      Government servant.  The nomination      form alleged  to have been filed by      Sri  Ramesh   for  the  purpose  of      Central    Government    Employees’      Insurance   Scheme,   was   not   a      document which  was attached to the      memorandum of  charges  as  one  on      which  the  Disciplinary  Authority      wanted to  rely on for establishing      the charge.  This probably  was one      of   the    documents   which   the      applicant  called   for,  for   the      purpose  of   cross-examining   the      witness  or   for   making   proper      defence.   However,    unless   the      Government  servant   wanted   this      document   to   be   exhibited   in      evidence, it was not proper for the      Enquiry Authority to exhibit it and      to rely  on  it  for  reaching  the      conclusion against  the  applicant.      Further, an inference is drawn that      S.B.R.Babu mentioned  in the school      records  (admission  registers  and      Sh.Ramesh    mentioned    in    the      Municipal    records     was    the      applicant,  on   the  basis   of  a      comparison of  the hand-writing  or      signature or  telephone numbers are      only  guess   work.  which  do  not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

    amount   to   proof   even   in   a      disciplinary  proceedings.   It  is      true  that   the  degree  of  proof      required    in    a    departmental      disciplinary proceedings,  need not      be of  the  same  standard  as  the      degree  of   proof   required   for      establishing  the   guilt   of   an      accused   in   a   criminal   case.      However, the  law  is  settled  now      that  suspicion,   however  strong,      cannot  be  substituted  for  proof      even in a departmental disciplinary      proceeding.    Viewed    in    this      perspective  we  find  there  is  a      total dearth  of evidence  to bring      home the  charge that the applicant      has  been   living  in   a   manner      unbecoming of  a Government servant      or   that,    he   has    exhibited      adulterous conduct  by living  with      Smt.   K.R.Aruna    and   begetting      children."      On a  careful perusal  of the  above  findings  of  the Tribunal in  the light of the materials placed before it. we do not  think that  there  is  any  case  for  interference, particularly in the absence of full materials made available before us  in spite  of opportunity given to the appellants. On the  facts of  this case,  we are  of the  view that  the departmental Enquiry  conducted  in  this  case  is  totally unsatisfactory and  without observing  the minimum  required procedure  for   proving  the   charge.  The  Tribunal  was, therefore, justified  in rendering the findings as above and setting aside the order impugned before it.      In the  result,  the  appeal  fails  and  is  dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.