P SUBRAMANIAN Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.M. Kalyanasundaram, Senior Counsel, for the petitioner and Mrs. Geetha Thamaraiselvan, Government Advocate, for the Respondents.

(2.) THE question relates to punishment imposed on the present petitioner in a departmental proceeding. At the relevant time, the petitioner was functioning as a Sub-Inspector. Two charges were leveled against him, one relating to acceptance of bribe and since the second charge has not been proved even before the departmental authorities, it is not necessary to advert to such charge. THE enquiry officer, on reference to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and others, came to the conclusion that there had been a demand relating to payment of bribe, though there was no definite conclusion regarding actual acceptance of the bribe. On the basis of such delinquency, the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. THEreafter, the petitioner filed OA.No.6894 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (in short "Tribunal"). THE only contention raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal was that there was no evidence in support of the conclusion arrived at by the enquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority. THE Tribunal, by referring to the evidence of some witnesses, more particularly P.Ws.1 and 2, had observed that, even though there was no proof for acceptance of bribe, at least the evidence disclosed that the delinquent had demanded bribe. THE Tribunal further found that the order of punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect cannot be characterized as excessive, warranting any interference. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed such O.A. by order dated 10.9.2003. THE present writ petition has been filed challenging such order after a lapse of about three years.

(3.) AS already noticed, in the present case, the departmental authorities have accepted the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 regarding demand of bribe. This has been again analyzed and accepted by the Tribunal. While dealing with such matters, the Tribunal has got a limited jurisdiction to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority. The High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, in a matter arising from the decision of the Tribunal, is not expected to sit as a second court of appeal to appreciate the acceptability of evidence or otherwise of the materials on record. Of course, when a particular conclusion is based on no evidence, the Tribunal, or, for that matter, the High Court, can interfere. But, there is vast difference between a case of no evidence and a case of insufficiency of evidence. Whether particular evidence would be acceptable by an authority or not, cannot be considered as a question of law to be agitated while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It may be that possibly another authority could have taken a different view on the same evidence, but that cannot be a ground to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority.