VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 393
775
Madras (Central) from 20.6.84 was promoted as Deputy Transport
Commissioner in Sept. 1985. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted
against him on charges of misappropriation of large amount of
Government money. He approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative
Tribunal and the Tribunal quashed the charges.
On appeal, the Supreme Court observed that so far as the
truth and correctness of the charges are concerned, it was not a
matter for the Tribunal to go into, more particularly at a stage prior to
the conclusion of the disciplinary enquiry. Even when the matter
comes to the Tribunal after the imposition of punishment it has no
jurisdiction to go into truth of the allegations / charges except in case
where they are based on no evidence i.e. where they are perverse.
The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is akin to that of the High Court under
Art. 226 of the Constitution. It is power of judicial review. It only
examines the procedural correctness of the decision-making process.
Supreme Court held that for this reason the order of the Tribunal in
so far as it goes into or discusses the truth and correctness of the
charges, is unsustainable in law.
(393)
Penalty — censure
Opportunity to show cause against imposition of
censure should be given, even where Rules provide
otherwise.
State of U.P. vs. Vijay Kumar Tripathi,
1995(1) SLR SC 244:AIR 1995 SC 1130
The respondent was Addl. District Magistrate (Executive) at
Byannpu, Varanasi district and was awarded a censure entry in his
character roll on the ground that he pressurised the carpet traders of
that area to render financial assistance to students who were agitating
against the reservation policy of the Government. The UP Civil
Services (CCA) Rules, Rules 49, 55-B(a), provide that whenever the