T SRINIVAS Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act') can sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the inquiring authority/disciplinary authority and interfere with the punishment imposed on a delinquent employee is the question which arises for determination in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Sri T. Srinivas for quashing order dated 24-12-2006 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.700 of 2005.

(2.) Before adverting to the factual matrix of the case and the arguments of the learned counsel, we deem it necessary to observe that the role of the Tribunals established under Section 4 of the Act is supplemental to the power exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of lndia, seven Judge Bench of the Supreme Court interpreted Articles 323-A and 323-B of the Constitution and held that Clause 2(d) of Article 323-A and Clause 3(d) of Article 323-B and Section 28 of the Act are unconstitutional insofar as they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Article 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court further held that the Tribunals created under Article 323-A and Article 323-B of the Constitution may perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution and their decisions will be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court, within whose jurisdiction the concerned Tribunal falls.

(3.) The High Court's power of judicial review of disciplinary action taken by the public authorities against delinquent employees has become subject matter of several judicial pronouncements. In Stale of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra, the Supreme Court considered whetherthe High Court can interfere with the order of punishment simply because finding recorded by the enquiry officer in respect of some charges is found to be vitiated by an error of law and whether it can go into the sufficiency and adequacy of punishment. While reversing the order of Orissa High Court, which had allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed: