THAMMAIAH CHARI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this petition was a Police Constable in the service of the State. In this petition, he has called in question the correctness of the Order dated llth January, 1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-R to this petition, passed by the Karnataka Administrative tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'tribunal') affirming the order of dismissal passed against him.

(2.) SRI Mahesh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner challenging the correctness of the impugned Order Annexure-R, made two submissions. Firstly, he submitted that since the impugned order was passed by the Administrative Member of the Tribunal, the same is liable to be set aside on the ground that the Administrative Member had no authority in law to pass the impugned Order. In this connection, he referred to us Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') and more particularly sub-sections (5) and (6) of the said Section. In support of this submission he relied on a decision of Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v b. R. Thakare and Others , and also the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of S. S. Rao v State of Karnataka and Another. Secondly, he submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner was not proved and the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority is perverse in law. However, sri Prabhakar, learned Additional Government Advocate tried to support the Order impugned. He submitted that on appreciation of the evidence on record, when the Inquiry Officer has found that the petitioner was guilty of the misconduct alleged against him and the said finding having been accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and also by the Tribunal, there is absolutely no justification for this Court to interfere with the Order impugned passed by the Tribunal.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned additional Government Advocate for the State, we are of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the short ground that the administrative Member of the Tribunal had no authority in law to pass the impugned Order. The petitioner had called in question the correctness of the Order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing him from service. It is not disputed that the impugned Order affirming the order of dismissal was passed by the Administrative Member of the tribunal. Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act provides that the tribunal shall consists of a Chairman and such number of vice-Chairman and Judicial and Administrative Members as the appropriate Government may deem fit and subject to the other provisions of the Act, the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the tribunal may be exercised by the Benches thereof Sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Act provides that subject to the other provisions of the act, a Bench shall consist of one Judicial Member and one administrative Member. However, sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1), (2)and (4) of the said Section, it shall be competent for the Chairman or any other Member authorised by the Chairman to that effect on that behalf could function as a Bench consisting of a single Member and exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal in respect of such classes of cases or such classes of cases as the Chairman may, by general or special order specify. It is useful to extract sub-section (6) of section 5 of the Act, which reads as hereunder: