RBE No. 05/1995: Disciplinary Action – Jurisdiction of CAT
No.E(D&A)94 RG6-87, dated 23.01.1995
Sub: Jurisdiction of the CAT in the matter of disciplinary action against Government Servants.
1. Under Board’s letter No.E(D&A)87 RG6-87, dated 08.06.1989, Supreme Court’s judgment dated 14.03.1989 in Civil Appeal No.1709 of 1988 UOI vs. Permanand was circulated, wherein the Supreme Court had ruled that the Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of Inquiry Officer or the Competent Authority where they are not arbitrary or perverse. The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the discretion of the competent authority in so far as quantum of penalty to be imposed after disciplinary proceedings, is concerned.
2. In two recent judgments in the case of State Bank of India v. Samrendra Kishore Endow [1994 (1) SLR 516] and Union of India vs. Upendra Singh [1994 (27) ATC 200] the Supreme Court has reiterated the said ruling that a High Court or Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority.
3. In the case of State Bank of India vs. Samrendra Kishore Endow, the Supreme Court have observed that the imposition of appropriate punishment is within the discretion and judgment of the disciplinary authority. It may be open to the appellate authority to interfere with it but not to the High Court or to the Administrative Tribunal for the reasons that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is similar to the powers of the High Court under Article 226. The power under Article 226 is one of judicial review.
4. In the case of Union of India and others vs. Upendra Singh the Tribunal had examined the correctness of the charges against the respondent on the basis of the material property produced by him and quashed the same. Allowing the Appeal of Union of India, the Supreme Court has held that “in the case of charges framed in a disciplinary inquiry the Tribunal or Court can interfere only if only charges framed (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 are the charges framed are contrary to any law. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. That truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into and the Tribunal cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority.” In the above that case the Supreme Court has also held that an officer discharging judicial or quasi-judicial duties is amenable to departmental enquiry into his conduct in the discharge of his duties.
5. A copy each of DOP&T’s OM No.11012/13/94-Estt.(A), dated 28.03.1994 circulating extracts of the Supreme Court judgment in case of SBI vs. S.K. Endow and OM No.11012/13/84-Estt.(A), dated 19.10.1994 circulating extracts of the Supreme Court’s judgment in case of UOI & Ors. vs. Upendra Singh are enclosed for information and guidance. These rulings of the Supreme Court may please be brought to the notice of all concerned so that the same are appropriately referred to in all cases where the question of quantum of penalty for correctness of charges comes up before the CAT or Supreme Court by way of an application, SLP or otherwise.
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions,
Department of Personnel & Training
OM No.11012/13/94-Estt.(A), dated 28.03.1994
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Sub: Jurisdiction of the CAT in the matter of disciplinary action against Government Servants.
1. The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department OM No.11012/1/90-Estt.(A), dated 28 February, 1990 on the above subject in which the ruling of the Supreme Court in Parma Nanda’s case [1989 (2) SLR 410] was circulated for information of the Ministries/ Departments. In a recent judgment in the case of State Bank of India vs. Samarendra Kishore Endow [1994 (1) SLR 516] the Supreme Court has reiterated the said ruling that a High Court or Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority.
2. In this judgment the Supreme Court has observed as under:
On the question of punishment, learned counsel for respondent submitted that the punishment awarded is excessive and that lesser punishment would meet the end of justice. It may be noticed that the imposition of appropriate punishment is within the discretion and judgment of the disciplinary authority. It may be open to the appellate authority to interfere with that but not to the High Court or to the Administrative Tribunal for the reason that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is similar to the powers of the High Court under Article 226. The power under Article 226 is one of judicial review. It “is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was made”. In other words the power of judicial review is meant “to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which it is authorized by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court.”
It would perhaps be appropriate to mention at this stage that there are certain observations in Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel [air 1985 sc 1416] which, at first look appear to say that the Court can interfere where the penalty imposed is “arbitrary or grossly excessive or out of all proportions to the offence committed or not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case or the requirement of that particular Government service.” It must, however, be remembered that Tulsiram Patel dealt with cases arising under proviso (a) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Tulsiram Patel over ruled the earlier decision of this Court in Challappan [AIR 1975 SC 2216]. While holding that no notice need be given before imposing the penalty in a case dealt with under the said proviso, the Court held that if a disproportionate or harsh punishment is imposed by the disciplinary authority, it can be corrected either by the Appellate Court or by High Court. These observations are not relevant to cases of penalty imposed after regular enquiry.
3. Ministries/ Departments are requested to bring the above ruling of the Supreme Court to the notice of all concerned so that the same is appropriately referred to in all cases where the question of quantum of penalty comes up before the CAT or Supreme Court by way of SLP or otherwise.
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions,
Department of Personnel & Training
OM No.11012/13/94-Estt.(A), dated 28.03.1994
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Sub: Jurisdiction of the CAT in the matter of disciplinary action against Government Servants.
1. The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department OM No.11012/6/94-Estt.(A), dated 28 March, 1984 on the above subject in which the ruling of the Supreme Court to the effect that imposition of appropriate punishment is within the discretion and judgment of the disciplinary authority, was circulated. In that case the Supreme Court observed that it may be open to the appellate authority to interfere with it but not to the High Court or to the Administrative Tribunal for the reason that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is similar to the powers of High Court under Article 226. The power under Article 226 is one of judicial review. In another judgment in the case of Union of India and others vs. Upendra Singh [1994 (27) ATC 200] the Supreme Court has observed as follows:
“It may be recalled that the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal is akin to the Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the principles, norms and the constraints which apply to the said jurisdiction apply equally to the Tribunal. If the original application of the respondents were to be filed in the High Court it would have been termed, properly speaking, as a writ of prohibition. A writ of prohibition is issued only when patent lack of jurisdiction is made out.”
2. In the above noted case the Central Administrative Tribunal examined the correctness of the charges against the respondent on the basis of the material produced by him and quashed the same. Allowing the appeal of the Union of India, the Supreme Court held:
“In the case of charges framed in a disciplinary enquiry the Tribunal or Court can interfere only if on the charge of famed (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. At this stage, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The Tribunal cannot take over the function of the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. Indeed, even after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, if the matter comes to Court or Tribunal, they have no jurisdiction to look into the truth of the charges or into the correctness of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as the case may be.”
3. In the above noted case, the Supreme Court has held that an Officer discharging judicial or quasi-judicial duties is amenable to departmental enquiry into his conduct and discharge of his duties.
4. Ministries/ Departments are requested to bring the above ruling of the Supreme Court to the notice of all concerned so that the same is appropriately referred to in all cases where the question of quantum of penalty or correctness of charges comes up before the CAT or Supreme Court by way of an application, SLP or otherwise.
Download Railway Board Circular RBE No. 05/1995
Forward reference ⇒ RBE No.