1997 (8) TMI 524

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed to above: (ii) that he failed to check the accounts deeply and thoroughly while making final assessment: (iii) that he failed to subject the above turnover to tax originally; and (iv) That he failed tosafeguard the Government revenue to a juge extent of Rs. 44,850/- After a due and proper enquiry, it was found that the charges weere proved. Accordingly, a punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect was impsed. The respondent challenged the above-said punishment by filing O.A. No. 1400/90 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. This Tribunal vide its order dated April 9, 1992, set aside the said punishment holding as follows:- "As laid down in the decision of the Madras High Court, t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he isciplinary authority is not open to challenge on the facts of the case. This Court in Upendra Singh's case (supra) has rule that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges and the Tribunal cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority. This Court in the said case furthe observed that the function of the Court/Tribunal is one of judicial review, the parameters of which are repeatedly laid down by this Court. This Court further held that in case of charge framed in a disciplinary enquiry, the Tribunal or the Court can interfere only if on the charge (read with imputation or particulars of the charges. If any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been ma....