VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

762 DECISION - 382
stage, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or
truth of the charges. The Tribunal cannot take over the functions 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.
If a Court cannot interfere with the truth or correctness of the charges
even in a proceeding against the final order, it is un-understandable,
how can that be done by the Tribunal at the stage of framing of
charges? In this case, the Tribunal held that the charges are not
sustainable (the finding that no culpability is alleged and no corrupt
motive attributed), not on the basis of the articles of charges and the
statement of imputations but mainly on the basis of the material
produced by the respondent before it. Supreme Court set aside the
order of the Tribunal and allowed the appeal and ordered that the
disciplinary inquiry shall proceed.
(382)
Court order — ambiguity or anomaly, removal of
Any doubt or ambiguity in an order passed by a court
of law can be removed by the court which passed
the order and not by the authority according to its
own understanding.
S. Nagaraj vs. State of Karnataka,
1994(1) SLJ SC 61
The Supreme Court observed that law on the binding effect
of an order passed by a Court of law is well settled. Nor there can be
any conflict of opinion that if an order had been passed by a Court
which had jurisdiction to pass it then the error or mistake in the order
can be got corrected by a higher Court or by an application for
clarification, modification or recall of the order and not by ignoring