- (1.) This appeal by special leave is preferred against an order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative tribunal in OA No. 2253 of 1991 dated 11/5/1993. The respondent was a basic servant in the District Employment Office, Tiruchirapalli. By an order dated 13/5/1980 he was placed under suspension on account of his misbehaviour with his superior officers and on that count charges were framed against him under Rule 17-B of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (CCA) Rules. After holding a regular departmental enquiry an order of compulsory retirement was passed against the respondent by the disciplinary authority. The departmental appeal and review were not successful. Hence he moved the tribunal by filing the said OA. The tribunal was of the view that the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the delinquent on account of which he could not place his defence effectively. The tribunal also thoroughly reappreciated the evidence and found that in the absence of an independent witness to substantiate the charges, the conclusions reached by the disciplinary authority based on evidence of the other employees in the office, cannot be sustained. Another ground given by the tribunal was that the punishment of compulsory retirement can be awarded if the norms prescribed under Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules are attracted. On these grounds the tribunal set aside the order of compulsory retirement and allowed the application. Aggrieved by that, the present appeal is filed by the appellants.
(2.) It is seen from the order of the tribunal that at the regular departmental enquiry held, the employees who were present at the time of the incident in the office on 2/8/1980 were examined and they all supported the charges (misbehaviour with the superior officer) levelled against the respondent/delinquent. The tribunal on a reappreciation of evidence, in judicial review, was of the view that the enquiry report based on such evidence cannot be totally accepted as free from bias and an order passed on such reports cannot be accepted as a fair and just one. Assailing this view of the tribunal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants brought to our notice three judgments of this court reported as State of T. N. v. S. Subramaniam, Govt. of T. N. v. A. Rajapandian and State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh. In State of T. N. v. S. Subramaniam a three-Judge bench of this court observed as follows: "The only question is: Whether the tribunal was right in its conclusion to appreciate the evidence and to reach its own Finding that the charge has not been proved. The tribunal is not a court of appeal. The power of judicial review of the High court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was taken away by the power under Article 323-A and invested the same in the tribunal by the central Administrative 397 tribunals Act. It is settled law that the tribunal has only power of judicial review of the administrative action of the appellant on complaints relating to service conditions of employees. It is the exclusive domain of the disciplinary authority to consider the evidence on record and to record findings whether the charge has been proved or not. It is equally settled law that technical rules of evidence have no application for the disciplinary proceedings and the authority is to consider the material on record. In judicial review, it is settled law that the court or the tribunal has no power to trench on the jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own conclusion. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It is meant to ensure that the delinquent receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the view of the court or tribunal. When the conclusion reached by the authority is based on evidence. tribunal is devoid of power to reappreciate the evidence and would (sic) come to its own conclusions on the proof of the charge. The only consideration the court/tribunal has in its judicial review is to consider whether the conclusion is based on evidence on record and supports the finding or whether the conclusion is based on no evidence. This is the consistent view of this court vide B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, State of. N. v. T. V. Venugopalari , Union of India v. Upendra Singh, Govt. of T. N. v. A. Rajapandian and B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India. In view of the settled legal position, the tribunal has committed serious error of law in appreciation of the evidence and in coming to its own conclusion that the charge had not been proved. Thus we hold that the view of the tribunal is ex facie illegal. The order is accordingly set aside. OA/tp/wp stands dismissed. "
(3.) In Govt. of T. N. v. A. Rajapandian this court held as follows: "The Administrative tribunal set aside the order of dismissal solely on reappreciation of the evidence recorded by the inquiring authority and reaching the conclusion that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the charges against the respondent. We have no hesitation in holding at the outset that the Administrative tribunal fell into patent error in reappreciating and going into the sufficiency of evidence. It has been authoritatively settled by string of authorities of this court that the Administrative tribunal cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on the findings of the inquiring authority in disciplinary proceedings. Where there is some relevant material which the disciplinary authority has accepted and which material reasonably 398 supports the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority, it is not the function of the Administrative tribunal to review the same and reach different finding than that of the disciplinary authority. The a administrative tribunal, in this case, has found no fault with the proceedings held by the inquiring authority. It has quashed the dismissal order by reappreciating the evidence and reaching a finding different than that of the inquiring authority. ";