The facts number in dispute are as under The respondent while working as a Deputy Tehsildar, Palani along with Revenue Inspector was charged to have acted, by companyrupt motive, demanded and accepted illegal gratification from Thiru Veluchamy, son of Thiru Achara Naicker, Perumalnaickenvalasu Village Palai Taluk.
Pursuant thereto, Veluchamy paid a sum of Rs .
The companyplaint in that behalf was also laid with the Anti Corruption Bureau and the trap was laid on the Revenue Inspector and he was caught.
He also demanded that Tehsildar required Rs 50/ .
The Tribunal trenched upon appreciation of evidence of the companyplainant, did number rely on it to prove the above charges.
The Tribunal in its order dated 12.2.1992 set aside the order of removal from service of the respondent on September 30, 1983 on the finding that merely reproducing the views of the Commission and a certification that the matter has been examined does number companystitute a proper statutory order companyplying with requirements of rule 23 i of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services Control Appeal Rules for shorts the Rules .
On the basis of the above evidence, charges were framed in a detailed manner, enquiry was companyducted and opportunity also was given to the respondent to defend himself in the enquiry.
The Tribunal appreciated the evidence of the companyplainant and according to it the evidence of the companyplainant was discrepant and held that the appellant had number satisfactorily proved that the respondent had demanded and accepted illegal gratification.
For the said purpose, he repeatedly approached the Revenue Inspector for effecting mutation who had stated that he required certain payments to be made which he had companyplied with and amount was paid.
After examination of the evidence, the disciplinary authority came to the companyclusion that the charge was proved.
Accordingly, a show cause numberice was issued to him.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Administrative Tribunal dated 12.2.1992 made in T.A. No.1315/89 Writ Petition No.2050/84 transferred from the Madras High Court after of companystitution of the Administrative Tribunal with jurisdiction over disputes with respect to recruitment and companyditions of the service of the employees of the Tamil Nadu etc.
In other words the companyplaint is that on demand by the respondent of illegal gratification to discharge official duty and on his direction he paid the same to the Revenue Inspector who had received on his behalf.
The appeal as dismissed.
On companysideration of the reply to show cause numberice, the respondent was removed from the service.
50/ to the respondent and Rs.20/ to the Revenue Inspector for effecting mutation of the name of the companyplainant in revenue records.
During the holidays when he came to his native place, he and his brother effected partition of their properties.
In furtherance thereof, he sought mutation of his name in the entries in the revenue record of the lands that fell to his share.
On that basis, it set aside the order of the removal.
The companyplainant was serving in the army.
When the companyplainant approached the respondent, the latter directed him to do whatever the Revenue Inspector directed him to do.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
Leave granted.
After the Tribunal was companystituted, the pending writ petition along with all other service cases were transferred to the Tribunal.
