N. RAJARATHINAMversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

                         N. RAJARATHINAM                                     A
                                    v.
                STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

                          SEPTEMBER 6, 1996

           [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)                             B

      Service Law :

       Dismissal from servic~Assistant Commissioner of Commercial
Tax-Cliarge of conUption-Enquiry held-Except one witness all other wit- C
nesses tumed hostile-Order of dismissaHJpheld by Tribunal on the ground
that evidence of PW I and other evidence on record were sufficient to dismiss
him from service-On appeal held if alt relevant facts and circumsta11ces and
evidence 011 record are taken into consideration and it is found that the
evidence establishes misco11duct against a public servant, the disciplinary
authority is pe1fectly empowered to take appropriate decision as to the nature D
of the findings and impose necessary punishment.

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 19334 of 1996.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 29.2.96 of the Tamil Nadu              E
Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A. No. 2152 of 1991.

      Ambrish Kumar for the Petitioner.

      The following Order of the Court was delivered :
                                                                              F
      Delay condoned.

       This special leave petition has been filed against an order of the
Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribuna~ Madras Bench, made on February
26, 1996 in OA No. 2152 of 1991. The petitioner, while working as
Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taices, demanded and accepted           G
illegal gratification. Consequently, he was suspended from service on Oc-
tober 1, 1995. An enquiry into the charges was conducted by the Tribunal
for disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal recommended dismissal of the
petitioner from service on the basis of the finding that the preponderance
of evidence established that petitioner had demanded and accepted illegal    H
                                     593
    594                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A gratification from PW-1 (Shammugasundaram). Accepting the report, the
    disciplinary authority, by its order dated January 6, 1989, dismissed the
    petitioner from.service. The petitioner then filed OA in the Tribunal. In
    the first instance, the Tribunal allowed the petition. Subsequently, when an
    appeal was filed in this Court, this Court by its order dated September 8,
    1995 set aside the Tribunal's order and held that the Tribunal is not a fact
B   finding authority and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is such matters is well
    settled. It was also held that Administrative Member cannot alone decide
    the matter. After the matter was remitted to the Tribunal, it held that
    though other witnesses had turned hostile, the evidence of PW-1 other
    evidence on record was found to be sufficient to dismiss the petitioner from
C   servic_e. Accor~ingly, the Tribunal has upheld the order of dismissal from
    service. Thus, this special leave.
                   I!   1




          Mr. Ambrish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has con-
   tended that as many as 17 witnesses examined by the Government to prove
D the charges of <;!emand and acceptance, have turned hostile and they were
  .declared hostile by the prosecution. The solitary evid::nce by PW-1, chronic
   defaulter in payment of sales tax, is without corroboration on material
   particulars and is not sufficient for order of dismissal of the petitioner from
   service. We find no fon:e in the contention. Admittedly, the Evidence Act
   has no application for the disciplinary proceedings. The report of the
E Tribunal was material before the disciplinary authority to take action in
   accordance with law. It is true that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Com-
   mission had recommended to take a lenient view in the matter but the
   Government had not accepted the recommendation. The view of the Public
   Service Commission being only recommendatory, the Government was not
F bound to accept the recommendation made by the Public Service Commis-
   sion. Taking all the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Govern-
   ment had accepted the finding of the Tribunal that preponderance of
   probabilities did establish that the petitioner had demanded and accepted
   illegal gratification from PW-1 and thereby the committed misconduct
G rightly leading to dismissal from service. This finding having been based
   upon the evidence of PW-1, it cannot be said that the findings is based
   upon no evidence. It is for the disciplinary authority to take into considera-
   tion all the relevant facts and circumstances. If all the relevant facts and
   circumstances and the evidence on record are taken into consideration and
   it is found that the evidence establishes misconduct against a public ser-
H vant, the disciplinary, authority is perfectly empowered to take appropriate
                      N. RAJARATIIINAM v. STATE                          595

decision as to the nature of the findings on the proof of guilt. Once there A
is a finding as regards the proof of misconduct, what should be the nature
of the punishment to be imposed is for the disciplinary authority to
consider. While making decision to impose punishment of dismissal from
service, if the disciplinary authority had taken the totality of all the facts
and circumstances into consideration, it is for the authority to take the
                                                                               B
decision keeping in view the discipline in the service. Though this Court is
empowered to go into the question as to the nature of the punishment
imposed, it has to be considered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
each case. No doubt, there is no allegation of misconduct against the officer
during his earlier carrier. But it does not mean that proved allegation is
not sufficient to impose the penalty of dismissal from service. Considered      c
from this perspective, we think that there is not illegality in the order
passed by the Tribunal warranting an interference.

       Accordingly, this special leave petition is dismissed.

G.N.                                                      Petition dismissed.   D