http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: THE GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: B. ASHOK KUMAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       28/04/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: Present:               Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy               Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa G. Prabhakar, Adv. for the appellant L.N. Rao,  Ramkrishna Prasad,  V.S. Reddy, S.U.K. Sagar, and D. Bharti Reddy, Advs. for the Respondent                          O R D E R      The following order of the Court was delivered:      Leave granted.      The respondent  was  imputed  with  a  charge  that  he demanded  and  accepted  a  sum  of  Rs.3,000/-  as  illegal gratification for refraining from registering a complaint in respect  of   the  bribe   given,    against  whom  criminal prosecution was  to be initiated. The matter was referred to the Tribunal for disciplinary proceeding 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 recommendation  was not  correct proper  and that major  penalty was  required to be given.  Accordingly, show cause  notice, together  with copy  of the  report, 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  dismissed  from  service. Accordingly,   order, viz.  G.O.Ms. No.238  Home (SCA) dated July 28, 1995 dismissing him service was issued. On the O.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 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 imposing penalty of  stoppage of  three increments would meet the end

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

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 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   initiating prosecution   against the  offender, it would have an effect on  the  maintenance  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 vs. Union of India [(1995) 6  SCC 749] has held that the Tribunal has the power to direct  the punishment,    imposed  by  the  disciplinary authority.      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.