GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
U.O.Note No:26788/Ser.C/98- I Dated:
18-05-1998
Sub:
Tribunal
interfering with the orders of suspension of the disciplinary authority pending
enquiry - Request to reiterate the earlier instructions - Reg.
Ref: 1. A copy of Supreme Court Judgement in
Civil Appeal Nos.911-12 of 1994, dated 21-02-1994.
2. U.O.Note No.
814/SC.D/94-1, G.A. (SC.D) Dept., dated 14-06-94.
3.
From the D.G., ACB, A.P. Hyderabad, Letter No. 16/RPC(C)/98, dated 21-04-1998.
4. U.O.Note No.
818/SC.E/98-1, GA (SC.E) Dept., dated 01-05-1998.
In the reference 2nd cited instructions were issued referring to the judgement of the Supreme Court of India as follows:
In State of Orissa Vs. Sri B.K. Mohanty in which the Supreme Court held that where serious allegations of misconduct are alleged against an employee, the Tribunal would not be justified in interfering with the orders of suspension of the disciplinary Authority pending enquiry is enclosed. The Supreme Court further observed in this case that the Tribunal appears to have proceeded in haste in passing the impugned orders ever, before the ink is dried on the orders passed by the Appointing Authority. The contention of the respondent, therefore, that the discretion exercised by the Tribunal should not be interfered with and this court would loath to interfere with the exercise of such discretionary power cannot be given acceptance.
2. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above C.A. No. 911-12 of 1994 dated 21-02-94, are as follows.
In the case of charges framed in a disciplinary inquiry, the Tribunal or Court can interfere only if on the charges framed (read with imputation or particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law. At this stage, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The Tribunal cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. indeed, even after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. if the matter comes to Court or Tribunal, they have no jurisdiction to look the truth or the charges or into the correctness of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as the case may be. The function or the Court / Tribunal is one of judicial review.
3. The Director General Anti-Corruption Bureau has brought to the notice of Government that the Government pleaders concerned are not seriously contesting by specifically mentioning in the Counter Affidavits that A.P. Administrative Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the factual aspects for the purpose of revocation of orders of suspension as clearly laid down in the Supreme Court in more than one occasion and despite the Government instructions.
4. The Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau has further stated that the Government Pleaders are not bestowing any attention, consequently, orders are being passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal revoking the orders of suspension with directions to reinstate the public servants facing serious charges of corruption and pending investigation and in some cases pending trial also.
5. In view of the above, the instructions issued in the reference 2nd cited are hereby reiterated and all the Departments of Secretariat / Heads of Departments and Government Pleaders of Andhra Pradesh, Administrative Tribunal, High Court of A.P., are requested to follow the instructions in disciplinary cases wherein the suspension of the delinquent officer is challenged.
6. The receipt of this Memo. should be acknowledged.
OPEN - CCA Rules - References (open)
