VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

278 DECISION - 60
Appropriateness of penalty imposed by disciplinary
authority not open to judicial review, nor are reasons
which induce disciplinary authority to impose the
penalty justiciable. Even if there be violation of rules
of natural justice in respect of some of the findings,
court cannot direct reconsideration if the findings
prima facie make out a case of misdemeanour. If
penalty of dismissal imposed can be supported on
any finding as to substantial misdemeanour court
not to consider whether that ground alone would
have weighed with the authority in imposing the
penalty.
State of Orissa vs. Bidyabhushan Mahapatra,
AIR 1963 SC 779
The respondent was a permanent non-gazetted employee
of the State of Orissa in the Registration department and was Sub-
Registrar at Sambalpur at the material time. On information received
in respect of the respondent, the case was referred by order of the
Governor to the Administrative Tribunal under rule 4(1) of the
Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1951,
framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution. The Tribunal held an
enquiry and recommended dismissal and after issue of a show cause
notice, the Government directed that the respondent be dismissed
from service.
The respondent questioned the order on the ground that the
Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1951 were
discriminatory when compared to the Civil Services (CCA) Rules.
The Supreme Court rejected the contention and held that the Tribunal
Rules cannot be held to be ultra vires on the ground of their resulting
in discrimination contrary to Art. 14 of Constitution.
On the question of reasonable opportunity and violation of
rules of natural justice, the Supreme Court held that the opportunity
contemplated by Art. 311(2) of Constitution has manifestly to be in
accordance with the rules framed under Art. 309 of Constitution. But,
the Court, in a case in which an order of dismissal of a public servant