PRINCIPAL SECY. GOVT. OF A.P. AND ANR.versusM. ADINARAYANA

             PRINCIPAL SECY. GOVT. OF A.P. AND ANR.                            A
                               v
                        M. ADINARA YANA

                           OCTOBER 6, 2004

      [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.]                          B

      Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Section 13(2), 13(J)(e)-Andhra
Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960-Section
4-Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules,     C
 1989-Rule 3(1)-Misconduct-Possession ofassets disproportionate to known
sources of income-Held, the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings has the
jurisdiction to try all matters involving misconduct.

      Andhra Pradesh Disciplinary Amendment Act, 1993-Rule 2H-Andhra
Pradesh Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1991-Rule 2B, Rule 9-acquisition or D
disposal of movable or immovable property by Government Servant-
Requirement of prior information necessary-Held, non-compliance of
requirement amounts to violation of conduct rules.

      Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal-Jurisdiction of-Held, it
cannot sit in ·appeal over the findings of the enquiry authority-Power of      E
judicial review cannot extend to the re-examination of evidence.

      The Anti-Corruption Bureau registered a case against the
Respondent under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(l)(e) of the
Prevention of Corruption Aci, 1988 with regard to the disproportionate
assets possessed by the respondent and investigated into the case. In his      F
report to the Government, the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau
recommended for referring the case to the Tribunal for Disciplinary
Proceedings, for enquiry into the allegations of acquisition of assets
disproportionate to the known sources of his income and also the violation
of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and to submit a         G
report to the Government. The Tribunal submitted its report finding the
respondent guilty under both the charges framed against him. The
Government after considering the report of the Tribunal issued a show
case notice to the respondent.

                                    115                                        H
    116


                                                                                    -
                             SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
                                                                                    I
A        The respondent's challenge to the show cause notice was dismissed.
    The High Court granted liberty to the charged officer to raise all
    objections as to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as also other issues before
    the Government in response to the show cause notice. Respondent
    submitted his explanation to the memo with regard to the jurisdiction of
B   the Tribunal and submitted his reply on merits.

          The Government issued orders removing the respondent herein from
    service. The Respondent challenged his removal on the ground that the
    Tribunal has no jurisdiction to enquire into Charge-I and Charge-II which
    was defective in nature and, accordingly, sought to quash the orders of
C   the Government. The Tribunal set aside the disciplinary orders of the
    Government. The Government's Writ Petition was dismissed.

         Before this Court, appellants, contended that the charged officer, the
  respondent herein, was removed from service by the Government as a
  disciplinary measure and that the possession of assets disproportionate to
D the known sources of income by the respondent, is a misconduct as defined
  under Rule 2(b) of the Conduct Rules framed under the proviso to Article
  309 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the Tribunal for
  Disciplinary Proceedings (in short 'TDP') had jurisdiction to enquire into
  the misconduct in terms of the TDP Act and the Rules made thereunder,
  thatthe opinion of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT)
E that the TDP had no jurisdiction to enquire into the first charge which
  falls under the Prevention of Corruption Act and which is a graver offence
  than the routine misconduct under the Conduct Rules is erroneous, that
  the respondent has not taken the objection regarding jurisdiction at the
  earliest opportunity and since the charged officer generally raised such
p objections, the Tribunal was not justified in entertaining that plea. That
  under the TDP Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the TDP is a fact
  finding authority and that the findings recorded by the TDP could not
  have been upset by the Tribunal,in as much as the Administrative Tribunal
  has no such power, that the Administrative Tribunal is not an appellate
  authority and, therefore, it could not have acted as an appellate al.1thority
G over the findings recorded by the TDP and accepted by the Government
  and that the charged officer has acquired such assets which included both
  immovable and movable properties without prior permission as required
  under Rule 9 of the Conduct Rules.

          The respondent contended that the contention the appellant that the
H
                PRINCIPAL SECY. GOVT OF A.P. v. M. ADINA RAY ANA         117
charged officer did not take objection to the jurisdiction of the TDP to         A
entertain Charge-I at the earliest opportunity is incorrect, that in view of
the directions issued by the High Court reserving the liberty to the charged
officer to take all objections including the objection as regards jurisdiction
also, the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is not
entertainable, that the second charge framed against the charged officer         B
alleges breach of Rule 9 of Conduct Rules whereas Rule 6 contemplated
no prior permission at all, that under sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the Conduct
Rules what is required is previous intimation to the Government to acquire
or dispose of any immovable property and the reporting of transaction
including movable property to the Government under Rule 9(2), that
framing of Charge-II is defective and, therefore, the disciplinary action        C
taken against the respondent should fall to the ground on that account
itself, that there are a number of arithmetical and clerical mistakes in the
order ofTDP and the TDP had not correctly appreciated the entire matter
on its proper perspective, that certain deductions to which respondent was
entitled to was not taken into consideration while calculating the
disproportionate assets and pointed out the discrepancies here and there         D
from out of the orders passed by the TDP, and that the requirement of
prior permission cannot be equated to statutory requirement of previous
intimation. Allowing the Appeal, the Court.

      HELD: 1. The possession of assets disproportionate to the known            E
source of income is a misconduct under the Conduct Rules as the
delinquent officer was being charge-sheeted for violation of Conduct Rules
made under the provision of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The
Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Rules, 1960 defines misconduct under Rule
2(b). The finding of the Tribunal that the Tribunal for disciplinary
proceedings has no jurisdiction to interfere into the charge which falls         F
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is not correct. The charge
under the Prevention of Corruption Act is a graver offence than the
routine misconduct contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services
Conduct Rules. A grave misconduct does not cease to be a misconduct
because it is grave. The Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings is competent      G
to examine the case. The TOP have examined 57 witnesses on the
prosecution side and 13 defence witnesses and have marked 129 exhibits
for the prosecution which were examined by the Tribunal together with
81 defence exhibits. A reading of the entire proceedings of the TOP would
show that the TDP has considered the entire material placed before it and
considered them in the proper perspective. (125-E, F, G, H; 126-A)               H
    118                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A         2. As per the amendment to sub-rule (1) of Rule 3, the Government
    may subject to the provisions of Rule 4 referred to cases relating to
    Gazetted and the non-Gazetted Officers in respect of all matter involving
    misconduct committed by them to the Tribunal for enquiry and report
    under Section 4 of the Act. It is to be noticed that when the matter was
    referred, this· Rule alone was in force. Therefore, the TDP acquired the
B   right to investigate the cases that fall under Charge-I. It is not disputed
    that the matter was referred to TDP on 21. 7.1995 when the Rules in
    G.O.Ms. No. 514 dated 15.10.1994 was in force. The contention of the
    counsel for the respondent that the TDP has no right to entertain the first
    charge relating to the offence has no merits an~ in view of the position
C   stated above, the TDP was competent to entertain Charge-I.
                                                                  [126-E, F, G)

        3. The respondent has neither supplied any prior information on the
  Government nor did he send any prior intimation tc the Government. By
  not doing this, he has contravened the provisions of Rule. 9. The Tribunal
D has also categorically held that the respondent has not applied for prior
  information before he purchased the items from the competent authority
  nor he intimated to the competent authority forthwith soon after the
  purchase of the several items. Therefore, the charged officer has violated
  Rule 9 of the Conduct Rules and thus is guilty of miscond~ct within Rule
E 2H of the Andhra Pradesh Disciplinary Amendment Act, 1993. In v~ew of
  the above-said finding it is held that respondent is guilty of both the
  charges framed against him within the Rule 2(b) of the Conduct Rules of
  1991 framed under amendment Act, 1993. [127-F, G, H; 128-A)

        4. The APAT cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based
p on the finding of the enquiry authority in disciplinary proceedings. Where
  there is some relevant material which the disciplinary authority has
  accepted and which material reasonably supported the conclusion reached
  by the disciplinary authority, it is not the function of the APAT to review
  the same and reach a different conclusion. So, it is well settled that if the
  findings recorded by the Tribunals or of the disciplinary authorities, are
G found to be perverse, which are not based on the legal evidence, then the
  administrative tribunal or the court is impowered to treat such flaw as a
  legal flaw and quash the impugned action. In the instant case, the fact
  finding authority has based its findings on legally permissible substantive
  evidence. And, therefore, such. a finding on fact based on substantive
H evidence is not permissible to be interfered with. (128-B, CJ
          PRINCIPAL SECY. GOVT. OF A.P. v. M. ADINARA YANA [LAKSHMANAN, J.]   119

       5. The Administrative Tribunal cannot ignore the findings of the             A
disciplinary authority or the tribunals. The truth or otherwise of the
charge, is a matter of the disciplinary authority to go into. The finding of
the court or tribunal under judicial review cannot extend to the re-
examination of all evidence to decide the correctness of the charge. The
Administrative Tribunal cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision
based on finding of the enquiry authority in disciplinary proceedings. This         B
court, time and again, categorically stated that court should not interfere
with the quantum of punisnment where there is some relevant material
which the disciplinary authority has accepted and which material
reasonably supports, the conclusion reached by the Disciplinary Tribunal,
it is not the function of the Administrative Tribunal to review the same            C
and .reach a different finding than that of the disciplinary authority.
                                                               (128-D, E, FJ

     6. The order passed by the Tribunal in original application and the
judgment rendered by the High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed
by the appellant is contrary to law and erroneous. Judicial review cannot           D
extend to the examination of the correctness of the charges as it is not an
appeal but only a review of the manner in which the decision was made.
The order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and the
judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court are set aside.
                                                          (125-D; 128-G)            E
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2332 of
2003.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 6.6.2002 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in W.P. No. 14358 of 2001.
                                                                                    F
        Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy for the Appellant.

     K.V. Satyanarayana, M. Radha Krishna and Abhijit Sengupta for the
Respondents.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                                    G
       DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, A. P.
Secretariat, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and The Director of Town and
Country Planning, Hyderabad are the appellants in this appeal. This appeal
is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in Writ Petition No 14358 of2001 confirming the judgment and             H
     120                        SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   order dated 22.2.200 I of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at
    Hyderabad allowing the Original Application No. 6755 of 2000 filed by the
    respondent herein and setting aside the order issued by the appellant in G.O.Ms.
    No. 520 Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department dated
    28.10.2000.

B         The background facts leading to the filing of this appeal be noted
    briefly and they are as follows:

          The respondent herein at the relevant time was working as Deputy
     Director, Town and Country Planning in the Municipal Administration
C    Department at Hyderabad. The Anti-Corruption Department Bureau registered
    a case on 30.9.1992 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(l)(e) of the
    Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with regard to the disproportionate assets
                                                                                          >
    possessed by the respondent herein and investigated into the case. The Director
    General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Government of Andhra Pradesh, submitted
    a report to the Government with regard to the disproportionate assets possessed
D   by the respondent herein and recommended to refer the case to the Tribunal
    for Disdplinary Proceedings, Hyderabad for enq11iry against the charged officer
    into the allegations of acquisition of assets disproportionate to the known
    sources of his income and also the violation of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services
    (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and to submit a report to the Government of Andhra
E   Pradesh. The Tribunal after conducting thorough inquiry and giving full
    opportunity to the parties submitted its report on 2.6.1997 finding the
    respondent M. Adinarayana guilty under both the charges framed against
    him. The Government after considering the report of the Tribunal by Memo
    No. 1593/82/93-6 MA & UD dated 24.9.1997 issued a show cause notice to
    the respondent herein calling for his explanation to the findings given by the
F   Tribunal.

           The respondent instead of giving his explanation to the show cause
    notice, filed O.A. No. 7490of1997 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative
    Tribunal challenging the show cause notice. The same was dismissed by its
    order dated 27.4.1998. The High Court disposed of the Writ Petition and
G   reserved liberty to the charged officer to raise all objections as to the
    jurisdiction of the Tribunal as other issues before the Government in response
    to the show cause notice dated 24.9.1997. The Government once again issued
    a Memo to the respondent herein to submit his explanation. The respondent
    submitted his explanation initially with regard to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal
H   to enquire into the charge No. I and thereafter on 31.3 .1999, submitted his
        PRINCIPAL SECY. GOVT. OF A.P. v. M. ADINARA YANA [LAKSHMANAN, J.]    121

reply with respect to the report of the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings. A
The Government on consideration of the entire matter and explanation given
by the respondent, issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 520-MA & UD dated
28.10.2000 removing the respondent herein from service (Annexure P/l ).
The respondent filed O.A. No. 6755/2000 before the A.P. Administrative
Tribunal challenging the above order of the Government. He contended that B
the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to enquire into Charge-I and Charge-II which
was defective in nature and, acc0rdingly, sought to quash the orders of the
Government. The appellant filed a detailed Counter Affidavit before the
Tribunal explaining the position. The Tribunal by its order dated 22.2. 2001
set aside the disciplinary orders of the Government. The Government thereupon ,
filed Writ Petition No. 14358 of 2001 before the High Court. The Division C
Bench of the High Court by order dated 6.6.2002 dismissed the Writ Petition
filed by the appellant herein. Aggrieved against the said judgment, the
appellants filed the above appeal.

       Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants,
 submitted that the charged officer, the respondent herein, was removed from        D
 service by the Government as a disciplinary measure and that the possession
 of assets disproportionate to the known sources of the income by the
 respondent, is a misconduct as defined under Rule 2(b) of the Conduct Rules
 framed under the proviso to Article 309 of tht( Constitution of India and,
therefore, the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (in short 'TDP') had           E
jurisdiction to enquire into the misconduct in terms of the TDP Act and the
Rules made thereunder. She further submitted that the opinion of the Andhra
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short 'APA T') that the TDP ~ad no
jurisdiction to enquire into the first charge which falls under the Prevention
of Corruption Act and which is a graver offenc~ than the routine misconduct
under the Conduct Rules is erroneous. The learned Advocate submitted that           F
the respondent has not taken the objection regarding jurisdiction at the earliest
opportunity and since the charged officer generally raised such objections,
the Government refers the case to the TDP on 27.7.1995 and that having
failed to take objection at the earliest point of time, the Tribunal was not
justified in entertaining that plea. She, also contested the correctness of the     G
findings of the Tribunal. With regard to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to
entertain first charge framed against the charged officer in view of the
amendment issued in G.O.Ms. No. 514 General Administration (Services-C)
Department dated 15.10.1994 amending sub-rule (I) of Rule 3 of the TDP
Rules. It is further contended that under the TDP Act and the Rules framed
thereunder, the TDP is a fact finding authority and that the findings recorded      H
    122                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A by the TOP could not have been opposed by the Tribunal in as much as the
    Administrative Tribunal has no such power. She further submitted that the
    Administrative Tribunal is not a appellate authority and, therefore, he could
    not have acted as an appellate authority over the findings recorded by the
    TOP and accepted by the Government.

B          At the time of hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, invited our
    attention to Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary
    Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960 (Act No.2 of 1960) which reads thus :

            "Section 4 Cases to be referred to-Tribunal The Government may
            refer to the Tribunal for enquiry and report such as may be prescribed
c           of allegations of misconduct on the part of the Government servants."

            The above section was amended by Act 6 of 1993.

          Our attention was also drawn to Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services
    (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1989 [G.0.Ms. No.304, G.A.D.
D   (Ser-C), dated 3.6.1989. The said Rule 3 was substituted by G.O.Ms. No.
    409, G.A.D., dated 20.9.1996. The said Rule react as follows,:

           "Rule 3. The Government may, subject to the provision of Rule 4,
           refer all cases of Officers, Gazetted or otherwise involving corruption,
           integrity, enquired into by Anti-Corruption Bureau including cases of
E          misappropriation embezzlement investigated by Anti-Corruption
           Bureau or emanating otherwise and w'1ich are considered not
           appropriate for prosecution in a court of law; to the Tribunal for
           Disciplinary Proceedings for enquiry ·and report under Section 4 of
           the Act."
F         Our attention was also drawn to G.0.Ms. No. 514 Geneta,I Administration
    (Services-C) Department dated 15.10.1994. By the said G.O., an amendment
    was brought by sub-rule (I) of Rule 3 by substituting the following Rule :

           "(l) The Government may, subject to the provisions of rule 4, refer
           the cases relating to the Gazetted an Non-Gazetted Officers in respect
G          of matters involving misconduct committed by them to the Tribunal
           for enquiry and report under Section 4 of the Act."

          It is to be, noticed that this Rule was in force at the time of referring
    the case to the TOP.
H
        PRINCIPAL SECY. GOVT. OF A.P. v. M. ADINARA YANA [LAKSHMANAN, J.]   . J23


     It is pertinent to notice that Section 4 prior to its amendment by A.P.         A
Act 6 of 1993 provided as under:

        "4. Cases to be referred to Tribunal: The Government shall refer to
        the Tribunal for enquiry and report such cases as may be prescribed
        of allegations of misconduct on the part of government servants."
                                                                                     B
       Section 4 of the Act which was in mandatory terms, was amended by
A.P. Act 6 of 1993 and the word "shall" occurring in Section 4 was replaced
by the word "may" which gave direction to the Government to refer or not
to refer the matter to the Tribunal. Section 4A which was inserted into
particular Act by the same amendment Act gave power to the Government
to withdraw at any such time any case from the Tribunal before its conclusion.       C
The section indicates that the copies to refer or not to refer the case to the
Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings or withdraw any case already referred
to the Tribunal became available to the Government only after the amendment
of the particular Act by Act 6 of 1993.

       Mr. K.V. Satyanarayana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent,
                                                                                     D
while answering the contentions of the learned Advocate for the appellant
submitted that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant thi;tt the
charged officer did not take objection to the jurisdiction of the TDP to entertain
Charge-I at the earliest opportunity is incorrect. The learned counsel contended
that in view of the directions issued by the High Court while disposing of the       E
Writ Petition No. 8798 of 1998 on 27.4.1998 reserving the liberty to the
charged officer to take all objections including the objection as regards
jurisdiction also. And, therefore, he submitted that the contention raised by
the learned counsel for the appellant is entertainable. The learned counsel
next contended that the second charge framed against the charged officer             F
alleges breach of Rule 9 of Conduct Rules whereas Rule 6 contemplated
prior permission at all. The learned counsel submitted that under sub-rule (I)
of Rule 9 of the Conduct Rules what is required is previous intimation to the
Government to acquire or dispose of any immovable property and the reporting
of transaction including movable property to the Government and.to sub-rule
(2) of Rule 9. Mr. Satyanarayana, therefore submitted that framing,ofCharge-         G
II is defective and, therefore, the disciplinary action taken against the
respondent should fall to the ground on that account itself. Mr. Satyanarayana
further contended that there are a number of arithmetical and clerical mistakes
in the order of TDP and the TDP had not correctly appreciated the entire
matter in its proper perspective. At the time of hearing, he pointed out that
                                                                                     H
    124                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A certain deductions to which respondent was entitled to was not taken into
    consideration while calculating the disproportionate assets and pointed out
    the discrepancies here and there from out of the orders passed by the TOP.
    As it is a decision on a question of fact based evidence adduced, we are not
    inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the TOP at this stage.

B         In the above background of facts and the contentions raised by the
    respective counsel, we shall now proceed to consider the rival submissions.

         Before proceeding further, we shall now reproduce both the charges
    framed against the respondent herein :

c          "Charge No. I : That you, Sri Adinarayana joined in Government
           Service as Town Planning Assistant on 1.11.1965 in the Department
           of Town Planning at Kakinada and subsequently you were promoted
           as Assistant Director in the year 1978 and as Deputy Director in May
           1985 and while working as such during the check period from
           l. l l.l 965 to l.l 0.1993, you actuated by the corrupt motive and in
D
           abuse of your official position in order to gain pecuniary benefit for
           yourself acquired assets worth Rs. 10,02,674 , through your income
           was Rs. 10,50,024 and expenditure was Rs. 5,25,570 and therefore,
           you are found in possession of disproportionate assets to a tune of Rs.

E
           4,78,220 and thereby you are guilty of misconduct within the meaning
           of Rule 2(b) of A.P. Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal)
           Rules, 1991 framed under the A.P. Civil Services (Disciplinary
           Proceedings Tribunal) (Amendment) Act, 1993.
                                                                                     -
           Charge No.JJ : That you have acquired the Assets i.e. house bearing
           No. 12-2-7171124, Sapthagiri Colony, Hyderabad in yourname worth
F          Rs. 2,23,000 and one Maruti Car bearing Regn. No. AHU 5355
           worth Rs. 80,000 that also you were allotted 2000 shares of 225
           partly convertible debentures in Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals
           Limited on 21.3.1991 and l.2.1993 in all worth Rs. 23,375 and that
           you also purchased teak wood from Sri Venkateswara Saw Mill,
           Sirpur worth Rs. 58,026 without prior permission of the Competent
G
           Authority violating Rule 9 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules,
           1964 and thereby you are guilty of misconduct within the meaning of
           Rule 2(b) of A.P. Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal)
           Rules 1991 framed under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services
           (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Amendment Act, 1993."
H
        PRINCIPAL SECY GOVT. OF A.P. v. M. ADIN ARA YANA [LAKSHMANAN, J.]   125

      We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced           A
by the respective counsel. In the instant case, the TOP conducted an enquiry
and examined all the relevant records, material papers and witnesses and
submitted their report to the Government. The TOP held that the charged
officer is guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Section 2(b) of Rules
framed under Andhra. Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings             B
Tribunal) Rules, 1991 from under Andhra Pradesh '.:i· ;' Services Tribunal
Amendment Act, 1993 for having been in possession of assets to the tune of
Rs. 2,61,816 disproportionate to the known sources of i 1come. In respect of
the Charge-II, the charged officer was found guilty of misconduct as there is
violation of Rule 9 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1964.

      The Government after examining the report of the Tribunal and after
                                                                                  c
following the required procedure under the Rules, issued orders removing the
respondent from service by order dated 28. l 0.2000.

      The Administrative Tribunal already noticed allowed the original
application filed by the respondent herein and set aside the orders issued by t)
the Government removing the respondent from service. In our opinion, the
order passed by the Tribunal in original application and the judgment rendered
by the High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein,
is contrary to law and erroneous.

      The possession of assets disproportionate to the known source of income     E
is a misconduct under the Conduct Rules as the delinquent officer was being
charge-sheeted for ·1iolation of Conduct Rules made under the provision of
Article 309 of the Constitution of India. We have already reproduced the
Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Rules, 1960 which defined misconduct under
Rule 2(b ). The finding of the Administrative Tribunal that the Tribunal for      F
disciplinary proceedings has no jurisdiction to interfere into the charge which
falls under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is not correct. In our
view, the charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act is a graver offence
than the routine misconduct contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Civil
Services Conduct Rules. A grave misconduct does not cease to be a misconduct
because it is grave. The Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings in our view is     G
competent to examine the case. The TOP have examined 57 witnesses on the
prosecution side and 13 defence witnesses and have marked 129 exhibits for
the prosecution which were examined by the Tribunal together with 81 defence
exhibits. A reading of the entire proceedings of the TOP would show that the
TOP has considered the entire material placed before it and considered them       H
    126                        SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A in the proper perspective.
          Reference was made to Article 309 of the Constitution of India by the
    Counsel for the respondent and it was contended that respondent could have
    been proceeded against, only in accordance with rule framed under Article
    309. Article 309 empowers the legislature to frame rules to regulate the
B   recruitment and conditions of service of person appointed to public services
    and posts in connection with the affairs with the Union or the State. The
    respondent's plea does not merit for consideration as the Government have
    examined the entire report against him and entrusted the case to the TDP in
    public interest in accordance with rules framed under Article 309 of the
C   Constitution. The Government have clearly examined the report of the TDP
    and decided to impose a major penalty under Rule 9 sub-clause (IX) of the
    Andhra Pradesh Civil Service (Classification, Conduct and Appeal) Rules,
    1991.

           The first charge falls under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The
D   charge is that the respondent is possessing assets which are disproportionate
    to the known sources of his income. The contention of the learned counsel
    for the respondent that at the relevant time when this matter was referred to
    TDP and the TDP has no jurisdiction to entertain the first charge, has no


                                                                                        --
    force. There is no merit in the said contention. It is pointed out that there was
    an amendment to Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings
E   Tribunal) Rules in G.0.Ms. 514 dated 15.10.1994. As per the above
    amendment to sub-rule (l) of Rule 3, the Government may subject to the
    provisions of Rule 4 referred to cases relating to Gazetted and the non-
    Gazetted Officers in respect of all matters involving misconduct committed
    by them to the Tribunal for enquiry and report under Section 4 of the Act.
p   It is to be noticed that when the matter was referred, this Rule alone was in
    force. Therefore, the TDP acquired the right to investigate the cases that fall
    under Charge-I. It is not disputed that the matter was referred to TDP on
    21.7.1995 when the Rules in G.O.Ms. No. 514 dated 15.10.1994 was in
    force. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the contention
    of the learned counsel for the respondent that the TDP has no right to entertain
G   the first charge relating to the offence has no merits and in view of the
    position stated above, the TDP was competent to entertain Charge-I.

         As regard Charge-II, it was contended that the charged officer has
    acquired such an assets which included both immovable and movable
H   properties without prior permission as required under Rule 9 of the Conduct
             PRINCIPAL SECY. GOVT. OF A.P. v. M. ADINARAYANA [LAKSHMANAN, J.]    127

     Rules. Rule 9 runs as follows :                                                    A
             "Rule 9. Acquiring or disposing of movable or immovable property:
             (I) No Government employee shall, except after previous intimation
             to Government, acquire or dispose of, or permit any member of his
             family to acquire or dispose of, any immoveable property by exchange,
             purchase, sale, gift, or otherwise, either by himself or through others.   l3
             (2) A Government employee who enters into any transaction
             concerning any movable property exceeding rupees twenty thousand
             in value, whether by way of purchase, sale or otherwise, shall forthwith
             report such transaction to Government:

     Provided that any such transaction conducted otherwise than through a regular      C
     or reputed dealer shall be with the previous sanction of Government."

            Sub-rule (I) requires that before a Government t>:nployee acquires,
     dispose of, or permit any member of his family to acquire or dispose of, any
     immoveable property by exchange, purchase, sale, gift, or otherwise either         D
     by himself or through others he has to do so after previous intimation. It is
     contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the requirement of
     prior permission cannot be equated to statutory requirement of previous
     intimation. It is true that intimation is intended to apprise the Government
     whereas the prior permission is something positive OI?- the part of the
     Government without which the Government employee cannot acquire the                E
-·   assets. It was also further contended that framing of the charge is materially
     defective because acquisition of the property by itself does not constitute
     contravention of Rule 9 of the said Rules.

           We have read this charge in the light of ai:egations in support thereof.     F
     In the instant case, it is not disputed that the respondent has neither supplied
     any prior information on the Government nor did he send any prior intimation
     to the Government. By not doing this, he has contravened the provisions of
     Rule 9. The Tribunal has also categorically held that the respondent has not
     applied for prior information before he purchased the items from the competent
     authority nor he intimated to the competent authority forth\\-ith soon after the   G
     purchase of the several items. Therefore, in our view, the charged officer has
     violated the Rule 9 of the Conduct Rules and thus is guilty of misconduct
     within Rule 2H of the Andhra Pradesh Disciplinary Amendment Act, 1993.
     In view of the above-said finding we hold that respondent is guilty of both
     the charges framed against him within the Rule 2(b) of the Conduct Rules of        H
     128                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A    1991 framed under amendment Act, 1993.

           The order of the Administrative Tribunal interfering with the well-
    considered order of the TDP is unwarranted. The APA T cannot sit as a court
    of appeal over a decision based on the finding of the enquiry authority in
    disciplinary proceedings. Where there is some relevant material which the
B   disciplinary authority has accepted and which material reasonably supported
    the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority, it is not the function of
    the APA T to review the same and reach a different conclusion. So, it is well
    settled that if the findings recorded by the Tribunals or of the disciplinary
    authorities, are found to be perverse, which are not based on the legal evidence,
C   then the administrative tribunal or the court is empowered to treat such flaw
    as a legal flaw and quash the impugned action. In t.he instant case, the fact
    finding authority has based its findings on legally permissible substantive
    evidence. And, therefore, such a finding on fact based on substantive evidence
    is not permissible to be interfered with.

D          In our opinion, the Administrative Tribunal cannot ignore the findings
    of the disciplinary authority or the tribunals. The truth or otherwise of the
    charge, is a matter of the disciplinary authority to go into. The finding of the
    court or tribunal under judicial review which, in our opinion, cannot extend
    to the re-examination of all evidence to decide the correctness of the charge.
E   In our view, the Administrative Tribunal cannot sit as a court of appeal over
    a decision based on finding of the enquiry authority in disciplinary proceedings.
    This court, time and again, categorically stated that court should not interfere
    with the quantum of punishment where there is some relevant material which
    the disciplinary authority has accepted and which material has reasonable
    supports, the conclusion reached by the Disciplinary Tribunal, it is not the
F   function of the Administrative Tribunal to review the same and reach a
    different finding than that of the disciplinary authority.

           In our opinion, judicial review cannot extend to the examination of the
    correctness of the charges as it is not an appeal but only a review of the
G   manner in which the decision was made. We have, therefore, no hesitation
    in setting aside the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and
    the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court for reasons stated
    (supra). The order passed by the Government removing the respondent from
    service is in order and, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant State stand
    allowed. Further, there will be no order as to costs.
H
    V.M.                                                           Appeal allowed.