VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

784 DECISION - 399
Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the
proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent
with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules
prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion of finding
reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the
conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have
ever reached, the Court / Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion
or the finding and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the
facts of that case”.
(399)
Penalty — for corruption
Dismissal is the appropriate penalty for misconduct of
corruption.
State of Tamil Nadu vs. K.Guruswamy,
1995(8) SLR SC 556
The respondent was convicted under sec. 5(1)(d) read with
sec. 5(2) of P.C. Act, 1947 (corresponding to sec. 13(1)(d) read with
sec 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988) as well as sec. 201 IPC and sentenced
to imprisonment by the trial court and following this he was dismissed
from service on 27-11-1978 under rule 17(c) of Tamil Nadu Civil
Services Rules which is evidently referable to proviso (a) to Art. 311(2)
of the Constitution of India. Subsequently on 10-12-1981 the High
Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondent and a special
leave petition filed by him was also dismissed. The respondent
approached the High Court by way of a writ petition questioning the
order of his dismissal which was transferred to the Tamil Nadu State
Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the dismissal order on
the ground that no ample opportunity was given to the respondent to
show cause against the action proposed. The Tribunal held that though
the respondent did not show cause pursuant to the show cause notice
yet it was obligatory upon the authority to consider the appropriate
punishment called for in the facts and circumstances of the case.