1996 JTR(SC) 1076
1996 AIR(SC) 2474 ; 1996 AIR(SCW) 3052 ; 1996 74 FLR 1999 ; 1996 6 JT 604 ; 1996 LIC 2069 ; 1996 2 LLJ 799 ; 1996 2 LLN 883 ; 1996 5 Scale 379 ; 1996 5 SCC 474 ; 1996 SCC(L&S) 1280 ; 1996 4 SCT 226 ; 1995 2 SLR 392 ; 1996 4 SLR 603 ; 1996 4 UPLBEC 2766 ; 1996 5 Supreme 696
1996(5) SUPREME 696
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. Jeevan Reddy and Suhas C. Sen, JJ.
State of Tamil Nadu -Appellant
versus
Thiru K. V. Perumal & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9229 of 1996
Decided on 16-7-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : V. Krishnamurthy, T. Harish Kumar, V. Rama Subramaniam, Advocates.
For the Respondents : R. Venkataramani and S.M. Garg, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
It is not the province of the Administrative Tribunal to go into the truth or otherwise of the charges and if can not go into the question whether charges were established on material available.
Act
Referred
:ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT : S.14, S.15
SERVICE LAW : .
A) The Administrative Tribunals Act, Section 14 read with Section 15 governs the jurisdiction and procedural framework of the tribunal in service matters, requiring that disciplinary authorities supply only relevant documents requested by a respondent and mandating that tribunals confine their review to assessing whether the departmental inquiry was procedurally sound rather than reappraising the evidence. The Service law principles of natural justice and fair inquiry underpin the tribunals duty to ensure that a respondent has a meaningful opportunity to defend himself, which includes a proper evaluation of the relevance of document requests and the material on which conclusions are based.
B) Key legal principles include: (i) a tribunal cannot act as an appellate authority and must not re-evaluate the truth or falsity of charges; (ii) the onus is on the respondent to demonstrate the relevance of requested documents and the prejudice caused by their non-production; (iii) the tribunal must record findings on whether non-supplied documents were relevant and prejudicial; (iv) appointment of an enquiry officer who is a witness is not per se fatal if the identity was mischaracterized; and (v) vague charges alone do not vitiate a proceeding if the respondent was informed and given an opportunity to respond.
Facts of the case:
A Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies was suspended on grave charges detailed in a memo dated November 3, 1987. He did not file a reply and did not provide a requested rejoinder. He sought certain records, but the Registrar asked him to specify their relevance, which he did not do. He declined to attend the enquiry, the enquiry officer held the charges established, and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission recommended removal. The respondent was removed in September 1991 and approached the Tribunal under O.A. No. 1053 of 1992. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on four grounds, including vague charges, illegal appointment of the enquiry officer, denial of documents, and failure to establish charges.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that grounds 1, 2 and 4 were unsustainable. The charges were not vague, the enquiry officers identity was not as alleged, and the Tribunal was not entitled to reappraise the evidence. The only viable ground was the non-supply of documents. The Tribunal erred by assuming an obligation to supply all requested documents; its duty was limited to relevant ones. The Tribunal failed to assess whether the documents sought were relevant and whether their non-production prejudiced the respondents case, and it did not record any finding on that issue.
Issues:
i) Whether the charges are vague or legally insufficient; (ii) whether the appointment of the enquiry officer was invalid due to a conflict of interest; (iii) whether the denial of all requested documents violated natural justice; and (iv) whether the Tribunal could reweigh the departmental findings on the merits.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Tribunal must confine its review to procedural irregularity, not factual reassessment. It is not bound to supply every document asked for, only those it deems relevant after the respondent is given an opportunity to show relevance. The Tribunal must record a finding on relevance and prejudice; in the absence of such an inquiry, the order must be set aside for rehearing limited to the document supply issue.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh disposal confined to the document supply issue, with no orders as to costs.
A) The Administrative Tribunals Act, Section 14 read with Section 15 governs the jurisdiction and procedural framework of the tribunal in service matters, requiring that disciplinary authorities supply only relevant documents requested by a respondent and mandating that tribunals confine their review to assessing whether the departmental inquiry was procedurally sound rather than reappraising the evidence. The Service law principles of natural justice and fair inquiry underpin the tribunals duty to ensure that a respondent has a meaningful opportunity to defend himself, which includes a proper evaluation of the relevance of document requests and the material on which conclusions are based.
B) Key legal principles include: (i) a tribunal cannot act as an appellate authority and must not re-evaluate the truth or falsity of charges; (ii) the onus is on the respondent to demonstrate the relevance of requested documents and the prejudice caused by their non-production; (iii) the tribunal must record findings on whether non-supplied documents were relevant and prejudicial; (iv) appointment of an enquiry officer who is a witness is not per se fatal if the identity was mischaracterized; and (v) vague charges alone do not vitiate a proceeding if the respondent was informed and given an opportunity to respond.
Facts of the case:
A Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies was suspended on grave charges detailed in a memo dated November 3, 1987. He did not file a reply and did not provide a requested rejoinder. He sought certain records, but the Registrar asked him to specify their relevance, which he did not do. He declined to attend the enquiry, the enquiry officer held the charges established, and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission recommended removal. The respondent was removed in September 1991 and approached the Tribunal under O.A. No. 1053 of 1992. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on four grounds, including vague charges, illegal appointment of the enquiry officer, denial of documents, and failure to establish charges.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that grounds 1, 2 and 4 were unsustainable. The charges were not vague, the enquiry officers identity was not as alleged, and the Tribunal was not entitled to reappraise the evidence. The only viable ground was the non-supply of documents. The Tribunal erred by assuming an obligation to supply all requested documents; its duty was limited to relevant ones. The Tribunal failed to assess whether the documents sought were relevant and whether their non-production prejudiced the respondents case, and it did not record any finding on that issue.
Issues:
i) Whether the charges are vague or legally insufficient; (ii) whether the appointment of the enquiry officer was invalid due to a conflict of interest; (iii) whether the denial of all requested documents violated natural justice; and (iv) whether the Tribunal could reweigh the departmental findings on the merits.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Tribunal must confine its review to procedural irregularity, not factual reassessment. It is not bound to supply every document asked for, only those it deems relevant after the respondent is given an opportunity to show relevance. The Tribunal must record a finding on relevance and prejudice; in the absence of such an inquiry, the order must be set aside for rehearing limited to the document supply issue.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh disposal confined to the document supply issue, with no orders as to costs.
JUDGMENT
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.-Leave granted.
2. 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 - Thiru K.V. Perumal - was a Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative 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 3, 1987. There are two charges and in support of each charge, supporting material and particulars 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 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 Commission, which was consulted in the matter, 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. 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 eligible, during the period of suspension and that he shall also be entitled to all benefits under the Rules.
3. The Tribunal has allowed the O.A. 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.
4. 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 it may, 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 whether the charges are established on the material available. The fourth ground also thus disappears. Now remains 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 case the respondent had asked for certain documents. The Registrar, 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 our 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 prejudiced the respondent s case. The test to be applied in this behalf has been set out by this Court in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma2. 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 by the Tribunal in this matter, it has to go back for a rehearing.
5. 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.
Appeal allowed.
*******