SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENTversusL. SRINIVASAN
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 265
- Decided
- 15 February 1996
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction and power of judicial review; its order quashing the suspension and charges is set aside.
Summary
The respondent, L. Srinivasan, an Assistant Section Officer in the Prohibition and Excise Department, was suspended and a departmental inquiry was ordered while a charge‑sheet for embezzlement and fabrication of false records was filed and a criminal trial was pending. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal set aside the departmental inquiry and quashed the charge on the ground that there was an undue delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings. The Secretary to Government appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction and misapplied judicial review. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in quashing the suspension and charges, as delay in detection of such offences does not automatically invalidate disciplinary action and the Tribunal was not an appellate forum for such matters. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal’s order, allowing the disciplinary authority to continue the inquiry and the criminal trial. No costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal had jurisdiction to set aside a departmental inquiry and quash disciplinary charges on the ground of delay in initiation of proceedings.
- Whether delay in detecting embezzlement and fabrication of false records is a valid ground to invalidate disciplinary action.
- Whether the Tribunal exceeded its power of judicial review in interfering with the suspension order.
Subjects
Judgment
-- SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION AND A
- EXCISE DEPARTMENT
v.
L. SRINIVASAN
FEBRUARY 15, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)
Service Law :
Deparlmental inquiry against employee for embezzlement and f abrica- C
tion of false records-Charge-sheet laid for prosecution-Trial of the case
pendin15State Administrative Tribunal setting aside departmental inquiry
and quashing the charge on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinmy
proceedings-Held; In the nature of the charges, it would take long time to
detect embezzlement and fabrication offalse records which would be done in
secrecy-No opinion on merits expressed-Tribunal committed grossest D
eTTo~Exceeded power of judicial review in quashing the suspension order
and charges even at the threshold-Such order putting heavy pressure on
Supreme Court to examine each case in detail and it is to be remedied.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.3658-59
OF 1996. E
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.11.93 of the Tamil Nadu
Administration Tribunal at Madras in O.A. No. 1702/93 and 2206of1993.
Ms. A. Subhashini for the Appellants.
F
V. Ramasubramanian and V. Balachandran for Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
G
We have heard the counsel on both side.
Order dated November 12,1993 in O.A. No. 1702/93 and ~206/93 of
the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras is in question before us.
The respondent while working as Assistant Section Officer, Home, Prohibi-
tion and Excise Department had been placed under suspension. H
737
•
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R.
A Departmental inquiry is in process. We are informed that charge sheet
was laid for prosecution for the offences of embezzlement and fabrication
of false records etc. and that the offences and the trial of the case in
pending. The Tribunal had set aside the departmental enquiry and quashed
.-
the charge on the grol.llld of delay initiation of disciplinary proceedings. In
the nature of the charges, it would take long time to detect embezzlement
B and fabrication of false record which should be done in secrecy. It is not
necessary to go into the merits and record any finding on the charge
levelled against the charged officer since any finding recorded by this Court
would gravely prejudice the case of the parties at the enquiry and also at
the trial. Therefore, we desist from expressing any opinion on merit or
c recording any of the contentions raised by the counsel on either side.
Suffice it to state that the Administrative Tribunal has committed grossest
error in its exercise of the judicial review. The member of the Administra-
tive Tribunal appear have no knowledge of the jurisprudence of the service
law and exercised power as if he is an appellate forum de hors the limitation
D of judicial review. This is one sucli instance where a member had exceeded
his power of judicial review in quashing the suspension order and charges
even at the threshold. We are coming across frequently such orders putting
heavy pressure on this .Court to examine each case in detail. It is high time
that it is remedied.
E The appeals are accordingly allowed and the order of the Tribunal
is set aside. The controversy is at large; the disciplinary authority would be
free to proceed with the enquiry and trial also be proceeded in accordance
with law. No costs.
G.N. Appeals allowed.
. ...
•
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.