1998 JTR(SC) 710
1999 10 JT 524 ; 2000 10 JT 524 ; 2000 3 LLN 90 ; 2000 2 SCC 220 ; 2000 SCC(L&S) 254
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.R.Babu : Sujata V.Manohar
Government Of A.P.
Versus
P.Posetty
Case No. : 8926 of 1994
Date of Decision : 7/29/98
Abuse of official position actuated by corrupt motives constitutes misconduct under service rules, as it violates the requirement for government employees to maintain absolute integrity and propriety, thereby falling within the jurisdiction of the designated disciplinary tribunal.
Act
Referred
:Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960
: S.3, S.4
Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1961: R.2(b)
Constitution of India: Art.371-D(5), Art.309
Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1964: R.3(1), R.3(2), R.3(3)
(A) Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960 - Section 4 - Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1961 - Rule 2(b) - Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1964 - Rule 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3) - Misconduct - Jurisdiction of Tribunal - Abuse of official position actuated by corrupt motives amounts to violation of conduct rules requiring absolute integrity, discipline, and propriety - Such actions constitute misconduct within the meaning of the rules, and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to enquire into such charges. (Paras 7, 8)
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Effect of promotion - Promotion granted on the basis of an order quashing disciplinary proceedings - If the order quashing the proceedings is set aside, the government is entitled to proceed further with the disciplinary action in accordance with law. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
A government employee serving as a police officer was accused of illegal detention and torture of persons for corrupt motives. The case was referred to a disciplinary tribunal which found the charges of abuse of official position proved. Following a show-cause notice for dismissal, the employee challenged the proceedings before the state administrative tribunal. The state administrative tribunal held that while a reasonable opportunity to be heard was provided, the disciplinary tribunal lacked jurisdiction to enquire into the specific allegations.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the charges of abuse of official position and corrupt motives clearly violate the conduct rules requiring employees to maintain absolute integrity and behave in a manner not unbecoming of their position. Consequently, such actions constitute misconduct, and the disciplinary tribunal had the jurisdiction to enquire into the charges.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary tribunal had the jurisdiction to enquire into allegations of abuse of official position actuated by corrupt motives.
Ratio Decidendi: Since the conduct rules mandate that every government employee maintain absolute integrity and avoid behavior derogatory to the prestige of the government, any abuse of official position for corrupt motives constitutes a wilful contravention of these rules, thereby falling under the definition of misconduct and within the jurisdiction of the disciplinary tribunal.
Result: Appeal allowed with costs.
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Effect of promotion - Promotion granted on the basis of an order quashing disciplinary proceedings - If the order quashing the proceedings is set aside, the government is entitled to proceed further with the disciplinary action in accordance with law. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
A government employee serving as a police officer was accused of illegal detention and torture of persons for corrupt motives. The case was referred to a disciplinary tribunal which found the charges of abuse of official position proved. Following a show-cause notice for dismissal, the employee challenged the proceedings before the state administrative tribunal. The state administrative tribunal held that while a reasonable opportunity to be heard was provided, the disciplinary tribunal lacked jurisdiction to enquire into the specific allegations.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the charges of abuse of official position and corrupt motives clearly violate the conduct rules requiring employees to maintain absolute integrity and behave in a manner not unbecoming of their position. Consequently, such actions constitute misconduct, and the disciplinary tribunal had the jurisdiction to enquire into the charges.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary tribunal had the jurisdiction to enquire into allegations of abuse of official position actuated by corrupt motives.
Ratio Decidendi: Since the conduct rules mandate that every government employee maintain absolute integrity and avoid behavior derogatory to the prestige of the government, any abuse of official position for corrupt motives constitutes a wilful contravention of these rules, thereby falling under the definition of misconduct and within the jurisdiction of the disciplinary tribunal.
Result: Appeal allowed with costs.
Constitutionality - The Supreme Court struck down Article 371-D(5) of the Constitution in this case, leading to the revival of the Tribunal's order.
(1) DELAY condoned.
(2) THE respondent was working as a Sub-Inspector of Police at Togta Police Station in Medak District of the State of Andhra Pradesh from 1975 to 1977. There were certain allegations of illegal detention of certain persons in police custody, their torture etc. by the respondent for corrupt motives. On being satisfied that a prima facie case against the respondent was made out, the case of the respondent was referred to the Tribunal constituted under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960. The Tribunal framed the following charge against the respondent:
"That you, while working as SI of Police, Togta, from 1975 to 1977, in abuse of your official position, and actuated by corrupt motives, harassed S/Shri S. Bal Reddy, Janki Sathaiah, Kambam Bal Reddy, Kambam, Lakshmi Reddy, Gadila Malla Reddy, Pogula Rami Reddy and Kambam Veera Malla Reddy by keeping them in illegal police custody and thereby you are guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the rules framed under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960."
(3) AFTER enquiry the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the charge of abuse of official position actuated by corrupt motives was proved against the respondent. The Tribunal sent a report dated 10-12-1981 to the State Government. The State Government thereupon served a second show-cause notice dated 1-4-1982 on the respondent asking him to show cause why the punishment of dismissal from service should not be imposed on him. On receipt of the show-cause notice the respondent filed a proceeding before the Andhra Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal challenging the show-cause notice.
(4) THE respondent challenged the second show-cause notice on two grounds: (7) the respondent was denied a reasonable opportunity to be heard in the course of the disciplinary proceedings against him by the Tribunal; and (2) the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to enquire into the allegation in question against the respondent. The State Administrative Tribunal has decided the first question against the respondent holding that a reasonable opportunity had been given to the respondent of being heard in the disciplinary proceedings. On the second question, however, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings had no jurisdiction to enquire into the allegation in question.
(5) THE findings of the State Administrative Tribunal were not accepted by the State which annulled the order of the State Administrative Tribunal under Article 371-D(5) of the Constitution. The said provision in the Constitution, however, was struck down by this Court in the case of P. Sambamurthy v. State of A.P. As a result, the order of the Tribunal revived.
(6) IN the present appeal the State has challenged the finding of the State Administrative Tribunal to the effect that the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings had no jurisdiction to enquire into the allegations in question.
(7) UNDER Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960 the Government shall refer to the Tribunal for enquiry and report such cases as may be prescribed of allegations of misconduct on the part of the government servants. Misconduct is defined in the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1961 in Rule 2(b). Under Rule 2(b) any wilful contravention of rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to such service and post until provision in that behalf is made, would be a misconduct. Such rules are framed by the State of Andhra Pradesh being the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1964 which apply to the respondent also. Rule 3 sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) are as follows:
"3. (1) Every government employee shall be devoted to his duty and shall maintain absolute integrity, discipline, impartiality and a sense of propriety. (2) No government employee shall behave in a manner which is unbecoming of such employee or derogatory to the prestige of Government. (3) No government employee shall act in a manner which will place his official position under any kind of embarrassment."
(8) THE charge against the respondent is abuse of his official position actuated by corrupt motives which would clearly amount to a violation of the conduct rules and, in particular, Rules 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3). We, therefore, do not find any substance in the State Administrative Tribunals finding that the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings had no jurisdiction to enquire into these charges. The impugned order of the Tribunal is, therefore, set aside. The appellant will be at liberty to proceed with the second show-cause notice and after considering the representation of the respondent, if any, to pass such appropriate order as it may deem fit.
(9) THE respondent has submitted that after the impugned order of the State Administrative Tribunal and before the stay granted by this Court in the present proceedings the respondent has been promoted. Hence, disciplinary proceedings should not now be continued against him. We do not find any merit in this contention. The promotion of the respondent was on account of the disciplinary proceedings being quashed. Since we have come to the conclusion that the proceedings were wrongly quashed, the Government is entitled to proceed further in the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law. The appeal is, therefore, allowed with costs.