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

PETITIONER: STATE OF TAMIL NADU

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THIRU K.V.PERUMAL & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       16/07/1996

BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) SEN, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (6)   604        1996 SCALE  (5)379

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                  THE 16TH DAY OF July, 1996 Present:           Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.P.Jeevan Reddy           Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suhas C.Sen V.Krishnamurthy, T.Harish Kumar, V.Rama Subramaniam, Advs. for the appellant R.Venkataramani and S.M.Garg, Advs. for the Respondents                       J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: STATE OF TAMIL NADU V. THIRU K.V.PERUMAL & ORS.                       J U D G M E N T B.P.JEEVAN REDDY,J.      Leave granted.      Heard the  counsel for  the  parties.  This  appeal  is preferred against  the Judgment  of  the  Tamil  Nadu  State Administrative Tribunal  allowing the  original  Application filed by  the respondent.  The respondent.  The  respondent- Thiru  K.v.Perumal   -  was   a  Deputy   Registrar  of  the Cooperative Societies under the Government of Tamil Nadu. He was suspended  pending enquiry  into certain  grave  charges which are  set out  in the  memo of  charges dated  November 1987. There  are two  charges and in support of each charges supporting material  and particular  5 are  elaborately  set out. The  respondent did  not furnish a reply to the memo of charges. By an application dated September 23 1988, he asked for perusal of certain "records and files which according to him were  quite essential  for the  purpose of preparing the statement of  defence by  him. He  seems to  have  addressed certain further  representations  to  the  same  effect.  On September 26,  1989, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (who had  served  the  memo  of  charges  and  to  whom  the respondent had made representations for supply of documents) wrote to  the respondent  asking  him  to  specify  how  the records asked  for by  him  were  relevant  to  the  charges

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

framed. He also stated that his duty is to supply only those documents which are relevant to the charges and not each and every document  asked for by the respondent. It appears that the respondent  did not  comply with  the said letter of the Registrar. The  enquiry officer  appointed by  the Registrar sent notices to the respondent to attend the enquiry but the respondent declined  to do so. The enquiry officer thereupon perused the  records and submitted a report holding both the charges as  established. A  copy of  the  enquiry  officer’s report was  communicated to  the respondent  who submitted a detailed  representation.  The  Tamil  Nadu  Public  Service Commissions which  was consulted  in the matters recommended the removal  of the  respondent. On  September 22  1991  the respondent was  served with  orders removing  him  from  the service. (As a matter of fact, he was to retire from service on September  30, 1991.)  A Review  Petition  filed  by  the respondent was  rejected  by  the  Government  whereupon  he approached the  Tamil Nadu Tribunal by way of O.A.No.1) 1053 of 1992.  The Tribunal  allowed the  respondent’s O.A.,  set aside the order of removal and directed’ that the respondent be treated  as on  medical leave,  to which he is eligibles, during the  period of  suspension and  that he shall also be entitled to all benefits under the Rules.      The Tribunal has allowed the O.n. on four grounds viz., (1) that  the charges are vague; (2) that the appointment of enquiry officer  was itself  illegal inasmuch  as the person appointed as  enquiry officer  was himself a witness against the respondent;  (3) the  failure to  supply  the  documents asked for  by the  respondent amounts  to violation  of  the principles of  natural justice and: (4) the charges levelled against  the   respondent  cannot   be  said  to  have  been established   on    the   material    before   the   enquiry officer/disciplinary authority.      After hearing  the counsel for the parties we find that grounds 1,2  and 4  are unsustainable in law and on facts of the case.  We need not deal with grounds 1 and 2 inasmuch as Shri Venkatramani,  learned counsel  for the respondent, did not seek  to support to the said grounds. Be that as st mays we have  perused the  memo of charges and we do not find any vagueness in  the charges. Similarly the second ground given by the Tribunal appears to be based upon a mistake as to the identity of  the person appointed as the enquiry officer. So far as the fourth ground is concerned it has been repeatedly held by  this Court  that it  is not  the  province  of  the Tribunal to  go into  the truth  or otherwise of the charges and that the Tribunal is not an appellate authority over the departmental authorities.  Accordingly the  Tribunal must be held to  have exceeded  its jurisdiction  in entering upon a discussion  without  the  charges  are  established  on  the material available.  The fourth ground also thus disappears. Now remained  only the third ground viz., the non-furnishing of the  documents asked  for by the respondent. The Tribunal seems  to   be  under   the  impression   that  the  enquiry officer/disciplinary authority  is bound  to supply each and every document  that may  be asked  for  by  the  delinquent Officer/employee. It  is wrong  there. Their duty is only to supply relevant  documents and  not each  and every document asked for  by the  delinquent officer/employee. In this came the  respondent   had  asked   for  certain  documents.  The Registered to  whom the  request was made called upon him to specify the  relevance of  each and every document asked for by him.  It is not brought to out notice that the respondent did so.  The Tribunal too has not gone into the question nor has it expressed any opinion whether the documents asked for were  indeed  relevant  and  whether  their  non-supply  has

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

prejudiced the  respondent case.  The test  to be applied in this behalf  has been set out by this Court in State Bank of Patiala v.  S.K.Sharma [1996 (3) SCALE 202]. It was the duty of the  respondent to  point out how each and every document was relevant  to the  charges or  to the  enquiry being held against  him  and  whether  and  how  their  non-supply  has prejudiced his  case. Equally it is the duty of the Tribunal to record  a finding whether any relevant documents were not supplied and  whether such  non-supply  has  prejudiced  the defendant’s case.  Since this has not been done the Tribunal in this matters it has to go back for a rehearing.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed,  the  order  under appeal is  set aside and the matter remitted to the Tribunal for  a   fresh  disposal  of  the  Original  Application  in accordance with  law and  in the  light of  the observations made in  this Judgment.  It is obvious that the scope of the enquiry shall  now be confined only to ground No.3 indicated hereinabove. There shall be no orders to costs.