RESPONDENT: PARMA NAND ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT14/03/1989 SHETTY, K.J. (J) SHETTY, K.J. (J) AHMADI, A.M. (J) KULDIP SINGH (J) CITATION: 1989 AIR 1185 1989 SCR (2) 19 1989 SCC (2) 177 JT 1989 (2) 132 1989 SCALE (1)606 ACT: Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: Section 1416, 2729. Disciplinary proceedingsInquiryPenalty imposed by Competent AuthorityPunjab Government Servants Condu ct Rules, 1966Administrative TribunalJurisdicti on ofWhether could modify penalty on the ground that it is excessive or disproportionate to the misconduct proved. Constitution of India, 1950: Article 311(2)(a): Civ il ServantConviction on a Criminal ChargePenalty imposed by competent authorityAdministrative TribunalJurisdicti on ofWhether can examine adequacy of penalty. Article 136: Supreme Court's jurisdiction Is equitableSupreme Court can modify the penalty imposed by Competent AuthorityHigh Court or Tribunal has no su ch jurisdiction. Words and Phrases: "All Courts'Meaning of. HEADNOTE: The respondent, in the appeal, was incharge of prepa r ing the pay bills of the employees of the Beas Sutlej Li nk Project. He, along with other two employees, was charg ed with the fraudulent act of withdrawal of Rs.238.90 by pr e paring a bogus pay bill and identity card in the name of a fictitious person. An enquiry was conducted against all t he three employees under the Punjab Government Servants Condu ct Rules, 1966 and the Inquiry Officer found all the thr ee guilty of the charge framed against each of them. The comp e tent authority accepted the findings of the Inquiry Offic er and after giving an opportunity of being heard imposed t he penalty of dismissal on the respondent. Minor penalty of withholding two or three future increments was imposed on each of the other two employees. The respondent challeng ed the finding of the Inquiry Officer as well as the order of dismissal by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Subsequently the writ stood transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal under the 20 provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. T he Tribunal agreed with the findings recorded by the Inqui ry Officer to the effect that the respondent was guilty of t he charge but modified the punishment by reducing the punis h ment of dismissal imposed to that of stopping his fi ve increments on the ground that the respondent was measur ed with a different yardstick than the other two employee s. Against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal appeals we re filed before this Court; (a) by the Union of India conten d ing that the tribunal has no powers to interfere with t he punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority on t he ground that it is disproportionate to the proved misdeme a nour, and (b) by the respondent seeking a complete exoner a tion from the charge. While allowing the appeal of the Union and dismissi ng the Special Leave Petition of the respondent the Court s et aside the order of the Tribunal, and, HELD: 1. Under the provisions of the Administrati ve Tribunal Act, 1985 the powers of the High Courts und er Article 226, in so far as they are exercisable in relati on to service matters stand conferred on the Tribunal esta b lished under the Act. The powers of other ordinary civ il Courts in relation to service matters to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognisan ce either expressly or impliedly barred also stand conferred on the Tribunal. The Act thus excludes the jurisdiction, pow er and authority of all Courts except the Supreme Court a nd confers the same on the Tribunal in relation to recruitme nt and service matters. The Tribunal is just a substitute to the civil Court and High Court. The Tribunal thus cou ld exercise only such powers which the civil Court or the Hi gh Court could have exercised by way of judicial review. It is neither less nor more. [27DE; 28BC1 S.P. Sampat Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., [1987] 1 S.C.C. 124 referred to; 2. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere wi th the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equat ed with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot inte r fere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer or compete nt authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly pervers e. The power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act of legislature o