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

PETITIONER: GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: K.N.RAMAMURTHY

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       13/08/1997

BENCH: K. VENKATASWAMI, V.N. KHARE

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                 THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1997 Present:                 Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Venkataswami                 Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.N.Khare S.Aravindha and V.Krishnamurthy, Advs. for teh appellant                       J U D G M E N T      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:                       J U D G M E N T K. VENKATASWAMI      The  respondent   herein  was   working  as   a  Deputy Commercial Tax  officer, Cuddalore  (Town) at  the  relevant time.   Under  Rule  17(b)  of  Tamil  Nadu  Vicil  Services (Classification, Control  & Appeals)  Rules,  the  following charges were framed against the respondent:      (i) That  he failed  to analyse the      facts involved  in each  and  every      case referred to above:      (ii) that  he failed  to check  the      accounts  deeply   and   thoroughly      while making final assessment:      (iii) that he failed to subject the      above turnover  to tax  originally;      and      (iv) That he failed tosafeguard the      Government revenue to a juge extent      of Rs. 44,850/-      After a  due and  proper enquiry, it was found that the charges weere proved.  Accordingly, a punishment of stoppage of increment  for three  years with  cumulative  effect  was impsed.      The respondent  challenged the above-said punishment by filing O.A. No. 1400/90 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal.  This Tribunal vide its order dated April 9, 1992, set aside the said punishment holding as follows:-      "As laid  down in  the decision  of      the   Madras    High   Court,   the      hierarchy   of    authorities    is      constituted for  correction if  the      original  order  of  assessment  is      wrong even  if palpably  wrong,  it

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

    cannot be subjected to disciplinary      proceedings  since   while  passing      such orders, he exercises the quasi      judicial functions conterred on him      under the General Sals Tax Act.  In      the light  of the  principles  laid      down in  the  above  decision,  the      disciplinary proceedings  initiated      against the  applicant heein is not      warranted     and      also     the      consequential punishment imposed on      his is  liable  to  be  set  aside.      Accordingly,  this  application  is      allowed.      Aggreived by  the above  decision of  the Tribunal, the present appeal  by special  leave has  been preferred by the ppellant.      Though notice  of lodgement  of the  petition of appeal was served  on the  respondent, he  has not  chosen to  entr appearance and contest the matter.      The learned  counsel for  the appellant  submitted that the view  of the  Tribunal for  setting aside  the punisment cannot be  sustained n the light of a number of judgments of this Court,holding  a contrary  view.   He  brought  to  our notice, the following judgments :-      Union of  India Vs.  A.N. Saxena  (1992 (3)  SCC  124): Union of  India vs.  Dhawan (1993  (2) SCC  56) and Union of India vs. Upendra Singh (1994 (3) SCC 357).      In the  case on  hand,  the  finding  accepted  by  the disciplinary authority  was to the effect that by the act of negligence in  making the  assessment, the delinquent caused loss to  the Government exchequer to the extent of 44,850/-. This finding  of the  isciplinary authority  is not  open to challenge on  the facts  of the case.  This Court in Upendra Singh’s case  (supra) has  rule that  the  Tribunal  has  no jurisdiction to  go into  the correctness  or truth  of  the charges and  the Tribunal  cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary  authority.   This Court  in the  said case furthe observed  that the  function of the Court/Tribunal is one  of   judicial  review,  the  parameters  of  which  are repeatedly laid down by this Court.  This Court further held that in case of charge framed in a disciplinary enquiry, the Tribunal or  the Court  can interfere  only if on the charge (read with  imputation or  particulars of  the charges.   If any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have  been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law.      In K.K. Dhawan’s case, this Court held as fllows:-      "28.  Certainly,   therefore,   the      officer who  exercises  judcial  or      quasi-judicial     powers      acts      negligently  or  recklessly  or  in      order to  confer undue  lavour on a      person is  not acting  as  a  udge.      Accordingly, the  contention of the      respondent has  to be rejected.  It      is important  to bear  in mind that      in the  present case,  we  are  not      concerned with  the correctness  or      legality of  the  decision  of  the      respondent but  the conduct  of the      respondent  in   discharge  of  his      duties as an officer.  The legality      of the orders with reference to the      nine assessments  may be questioned

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

    in appeal  or  revision  under  the      Act.   But we  have no doubt in our      mind that  the  Government  is  not      precluded    from     taking    the      disciplinary action  for  violation      of the  Conduct Rules.    Thus,  we      conclude  that   the   disciplinary      action  can   be   taken   in   the      following cases :      (i) Where  the officer had acted in      a manner  as would  reflect on  his      reputation for  integrity  or  good      faith or devotion to duty:      (ii)  It   there  is   prima  facie      material to  show  recklessness  or      miscounduct in the discharge of his      duty:      (iii) If  he has  acted in a manner      which is  unbecoming of  government      servant      (iv) If he had acted negligently or      that  he   omitted  the  prescribed      conditions which  are essential for      the  exercise   of  the   statutory      owers:      (v) If  he had  acted in  order  to      unduly favour a party;      (vi) If  he had  been  actuated  by      corrupt motive,  however small  the      bribe may be because Lord Coke said      long ago  though the  bribe may  be      small, yet the fault is great.      29. The  instances above catalogued      are not  exhaustive.   However,  we      may add  that for  a mere technical      violation  or  merely  because  the      order is  wrong and  the action not      falling under  the above enumerated      instances, disciplinary  action  is      not warranted.   Here, we may utter      a word  of caution.  Each case will      depend  upon   the  facts   and  no      absolute rule can be postulated."      In the  premises and in the light of the finding of the disciplinary authority,  the view  taken by  the Tribunal to set aside  the punishment cannot be sustained.  Accordingly, the order  of the  Tribunal is  set aside  and that  of  the disciplinary authority  is restored,  However, there will be no order as to costs. IN THE MATTER OF