http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: S. SUBRAMANIAM

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/01/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J) G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1232            JT 1996 (2)   114  1996 SCALE  (1)810

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.          This  appeal  by  special  leave  arises  from  the order  of   the  Administrative   Tribunal  dated  12.2.1992 made  in   T.A.  No.1315/89   (Writ   Petition   No.2050/84) transferred from the Madras High Court after of 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  certification 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   shorts  ’the Rules’). The facts not in dispute are as under:      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    Thiru   Achara   Naicker,   Perumalnaickenvalasu Village  Palai   Taluk.  Pursuant  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  complainant   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.  In  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

had  complied   with  and   amount   was   paid.   He   also demanded  that   Tehsildar  required   Rs  50/-.   When  the complainant   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 Inspector  who  had  received  on  his  behalf.  The complaint in  that behalf  was  also  laid  with  the  Anti- Corruption Bureau  and the  trap was  laid  on  the  Revenue Inspector and  he was  caught. On  the basis  of  the  above evidence, charges  were framed in a detailed manner, enquiry was  conducted   and  opportunity  also  was  given  to  the respondent  to   defend  himself   in  the   enquiry.  After examination of  the  evidence,  the  disciplinary  authority came  to   the  conclusion   that  the  charge  was  proved. Accordingly, a  show cause  notice was  issued  to  him.  On consideration  of  the  reply  to  show  cause  notice,  the respondent  was   removed  from   the  service.  The  appeal as  dismissed.  After  the  Tribunal  was  constituted,  the pending  writ   petition  along   with  all   other  service cases were transferred to the Tribunal.      The  Tribunal   appreciated   the   evidence   of   the complainant  and   according  to  it  the  evidence  of  the complainant was  discrepant and  held that the appellant had not satisfactorily  proved that the respondent  had demanded and accepted  illegal gratification.  The Tribunal  trenched upon appreciation  of evidence  of the  complainant, did not rely on it to prove the above charges. On that basis, it set aside the  order of the removal. Thus this appeal by special leave.      The only question is: whether the Tribunal was right in its conclusion  to appreciate  the evidence and to reach its own finding  that  the  charge  has  not  been  proved.  The Tribunal is  not a  court of  appeal. The  power of judicial review  of   the  High   Court  under  Article  226  of  the constitution of  India was  taken away  by the  power  under Article 323A  and invested  the  same  on  the  Tribunal  by Central Administrative  Tribunal Act. It is settled law that the Tribunal  has only  power  of  judicial  review  of  the administrative  action   of  the   appellant  on  complaints relating to  service conditions  of  employees.  It  is  the exclusive domain  of the  disciplinary authority to consider the evidence  on record  and to  record findings whether the charge has  been proved  or not.  It is  equally settled law that technical  rules of evidence has no application for the disciplinary proceedings  and the  authority is  to consider the material  on record.  In judicial  review, it is settled law that  the Court  or the Tribunal has no  power to trench on the jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own conclusion. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision  but a review of the manner in which the decision is made.  It is meant to ensure that the delinquent receives fair treatment  and not  to ensure that the conclusion which the authority  reaches is necessarily correct in the view of the court  or tribunal.  When the  conclusion reached by the authority is  based on evidence, Tribunal is devoid of power to re-appreciate  the evidence  and would  come to  its  own conclusion  on   the  proof   of  the   charge.   The   only consideration the  Court/Tribunal has in its judicial review is to  consider whether  the conclusion is based on evidence on record and supports the finding or whether the conclusion is based  on no  evidence. This  is consistent  view of this Court vide  B.C. Chaturvedi  vs. Union of India [JT 1995 (8) SC 65],  State of  Tamil Nadu vs. T.V. Venugopalan [(1994) 6

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

SCC 302  para 7], Union of India vs. Upendra Singh [(1994) 3 SCC 357  at para  6], Government of Tamil Nadu & Anr. vs. A. Rajapandian [(1995) 1 SCC 216 para 4] and Union of India vs. B.S. Chaturvedi [(1995) 6 SCC 749 at 759-60]. In view of the settled legal  position, the  Tribunal has committed serious error of  law in  appreciation of the evidence and-in coming to its  own conclusion that the  charge had not been proved. Thus we  hold that  the view   of  the Tribunal  is ex facie illegal. The  order is accordingly set aside. OA/TP/WP stand dismissed.      The  appeal  is  accordingly  allowed.  The  I.A.stands dismissed. No costs.