1997 JTR(SC) 1092
1997 AIR(SC) 3571 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 3677 ; 1998 1 AllCJ 39 ; 1997 2 CLR 704 ; 1997 7 JT 401 ; 1998 LIC 96 ; 1998 1 LLJ 89 ; 1997 3 LLN 703 ; 1997 3 RSJ 728 ; 1997 5 Scale 476 ; 1997 7 SCC 101 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 1749 ; 1997 4 SCT 76 ; 1997 5 SLR 232 ; 1997 2 UJ 546 ; 1997 7 Supreme 264
1997(7) Supreme 264
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Venkataswami & V.N. Khare, JJ.
Government of Tamil Nadu -Appellant
versus
K. N. Ramamurthy -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 930 of 1993
Decided on 13-8-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S. Aravindha and V. Krishnamurthy, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges and the Tribunal can not take over the functions of the disciplinary authority.
Act Referred :SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeals) Rules provide the regulatory framework governing service matters for civil servants in the state, and Rule 17(b) outlines the process for framing charges in disciplinary proceedings. The principles laid down in the Madras High Court decisions on the hierarchy of authorities and quasi-judicial functions under the General Sales Tax Act are directly applicable to determine the scope of disciplinary action. These authorities establish that while courts and tribunals can exercise judicial review over the legality of orders, they cannot second-guess findings of fact or interfere with the exercise of quasi-judicial discretion unless the charges framed are legally unsustainable or devoid of any misconduct. The Union of India judgments further clarify that tribunals lack jurisdiction to reassess the correctness of factual findings made by disciplinary authorities and that such bodies can only intervene if no misconduct is made out on the charges or the orders are palpably erroneous.
(B) The core legal principles include that a civil servant exercising quasi-judicial or judicial powers is not immune from disciplinary action if such powers are exercised negligently or recklessly; that disciplinary authorities can take action for conduct unbecoming of a government servant or for negligence causing loss to the exchequer; that tribunals cannot re-appreciate facts or evidence; and that mere technical violations do not warrant disciplinary action unless they involve mala fide conduct, corruption, or a significant departure from duty.
Facts of the case:
The respondent was a Deputy Commercial Tax Officer who was found to have failed in his duty by not properly analysing cases, not thoroughly checking accounts, not applying tax on turnover, and causing a significant loss to government revenue amounting to Rs. 44,850. A disciplinary enquiry found the charges proved and imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for three years. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal set aside the punishment, holding that the respondent was exercising quasi-judicial functions and that the charges were subject to appeal or revision only. The appellant challenged this order before the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The High Court accepted the disciplinary authority's finding of negligence causing a loss of Rs. 44,850 and held that this finding was not open to challenge. It ruled that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to question the correctness of the charges or the factual basis of the disciplinary order, and that the Tribunal could only interfere if no misconduct was made out or the charges were contrary to law. Citing precedents, the Court clarified that negligent or reckless exercise of quasi-judicial powers, causing loss to the government, constitutes sufficient ground for disciplinary action.
Issues:
Whether a disciplinary authority can punish a civil servant for negligence in the discharge of quasi-judicial duties causing financial loss to the government; whether a tribunal has the jurisdiction to set aside a punishment based on findings of fact; and whether the correctness of tax assessments can be reviewed under disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi:
Negligence or recklessness in the exercise of quasi-judicial powers, resulting in pecuniary loss to the government, is a valid ground for disciplinary action. Tribunals are confined to judicial review and cannot re-appreciate the facts or evidence, and the correctness of the underlying assessment is not open to challenge in disciplinary proceedings unless the charges are legally unsustainable.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is set aside, and the disciplinary order restoring the stoppage of increment for three years is restored without any order as to costs.
(A) The Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeals) Rules provide the regulatory framework governing service matters for civil servants in the state, and Rule 17(b) outlines the process for framing charges in disciplinary proceedings. The principles laid down in the Madras High Court decisions on the hierarchy of authorities and quasi-judicial functions under the General Sales Tax Act are directly applicable to determine the scope of disciplinary action. These authorities establish that while courts and tribunals can exercise judicial review over the legality of orders, they cannot second-guess findings of fact or interfere with the exercise of quasi-judicial discretion unless the charges framed are legally unsustainable or devoid of any misconduct. The Union of India judgments further clarify that tribunals lack jurisdiction to reassess the correctness of factual findings made by disciplinary authorities and that such bodies can only intervene if no misconduct is made out on the charges or the orders are palpably erroneous.
(B) The core legal principles include that a civil servant exercising quasi-judicial or judicial powers is not immune from disciplinary action if such powers are exercised negligently or recklessly; that disciplinary authorities can take action for conduct unbecoming of a government servant or for negligence causing loss to the exchequer; that tribunals cannot re-appreciate facts or evidence; and that mere technical violations do not warrant disciplinary action unless they involve mala fide conduct, corruption, or a significant departure from duty.
Facts of the case:
The respondent was a Deputy Commercial Tax Officer who was found to have failed in his duty by not properly analysing cases, not thoroughly checking accounts, not applying tax on turnover, and causing a significant loss to government revenue amounting to Rs. 44,850. A disciplinary enquiry found the charges proved and imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for three years. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal set aside the punishment, holding that the respondent was exercising quasi-judicial functions and that the charges were subject to appeal or revision only. The appellant challenged this order before the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The High Court accepted the disciplinary authority's finding of negligence causing a loss of Rs. 44,850 and held that this finding was not open to challenge. It ruled that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to question the correctness of the charges or the factual basis of the disciplinary order, and that the Tribunal could only interfere if no misconduct was made out or the charges were contrary to law. Citing precedents, the Court clarified that negligent or reckless exercise of quasi-judicial powers, causing loss to the government, constitutes sufficient ground for disciplinary action.
Issues:
Whether a disciplinary authority can punish a civil servant for negligence in the discharge of quasi-judicial duties causing financial loss to the government; whether a tribunal has the jurisdiction to set aside a punishment based on findings of fact; and whether the correctness of tax assessments can be reviewed under disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi:
Negligence or recklessness in the exercise of quasi-judicial powers, resulting in pecuniary loss to the government, is a valid ground for disciplinary action. Tribunals are confined to judicial review and cannot re-appreciate the facts or evidence, and the correctness of the underlying assessment is not open to challenge in disciplinary proceedings unless the charges are legally unsustainable.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is set aside, and the disciplinary order restoring the stoppage of increment for three years is restored without any order as to costs.
Jurisdiction - Referred to for the principle that quasi-judicial officers are subject to disciplinary action for negligence or misconduct.
QuasiJudicial - Cited to establish that disciplinary action is warranted for negligence or reckless exercise of quasi-judicial powers.
Disciplinary - Applied to hold that Tribunals cannot review the correctness of charges and must defer to disciplinary authority findings.
JUDGMENT
K. Venkataswami, J.-The respondent herein was working as a Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Cuddalore (Town) at the relevant time. Under Rule 17(b) Tamil Nadu Civil 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 to safeguard the Government revenue to a huge extent of Rs. 44,850/-.
2. After a due and proper enquiry, it was found that the charges were proved. Accordingly, a punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect was imposed.
3. 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 cannot be subjected to disciplinary proceedings since while passing such orders, he exercises the quasi judicial functions conferred on him under the General Sales Tax Act. In the light of the principles laid down in the above decision the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant herein is not warranted and also the consequential punishment imposed on his is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this application is allowed.
4. Aggrieved by the above decision of the Tribunal, the present appeal by special leave has been preferred by the appellant.
5. Though notice of lodgement of the petition of appeal was served on the respondent, he has not chosen to enter appearance and contest the matter.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the view of the Tribunal for setting aside the punishment cannot be sustained in 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 v. A.N. Saxena1;
Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan2;
Union of India v. Upendra Singh3.
7. 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 disciplinary 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 further 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 charges framed in a disciplinary enquiry, the Tribunal of the Court can interfere only if on the charges (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.
8. In K.K. Dhawan s case, this Court held as follows :-
"28. Certainly, therefore, the officer who exercises judicial or quasi-judicial powers acts negligently or recklessly or in order to confer undue favour on a person is not acting as a Judge. 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 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) if there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his duty;
(iii) if he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a government servant
(iv) if he had acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of the statutory powers;
(v) if he had acted in ordered 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."
9. 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.
Appeal allowed.
********