05.04.2013 Views

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

154 DECISION -<br />

termination of contractual service, temporary service, of<br />

officiating post, permanent post, probationer, regular employee,<br />

termination with notice, termination for absence, power of appointing<br />

authority to terminate and application of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution.<br />

Compulsory retirement (non-penal) covering different situations is<br />

also dealt with at some length.<br />

22. Decisions on the question of “jurisdiction of court” in writ<br />

proceedings under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution of India<br />

are dealt with copiously considering the importance of the subject.<br />

The Digest has taken note of the observation of the Rajasthan High<br />

Court that the disciplinary authority can be dismissed for holding<br />

inquiry in a slipshod manner or dishonestly. Often one comes across<br />

disciplinary authorities who deserve application of this salutary<br />

decision. The Supreme Court held that disciplinary authority, where<br />

it differs with the finding of not guilty of the Inquiry Officer, should<br />

communicate reasons for such disagreement with the inquiry report,<br />

to the Charged Officer but it is not necessary to discuss materials in<br />

detail and contest the conclusions of the Inquiry Officer. The Apex<br />

Court pointed out that where departmental proceedings are quashed<br />

by civil court on a technical ground of irregularity in procedure and<br />

where merits of the charge were never investigated, fresh<br />

departmental inquiry can be held on same facts and a fresh order of<br />

suspension passed.<br />

23. Acquittal does not automatically entitle one to get the<br />

consequential benefits as a matter of course. This is a common<br />

misconception which the Supreme Court has clarified in a case. The<br />

Supreme Court pointed out that departmental instructions are<br />

instructions of prudence, not rules that bind or vitiate in violation. It<br />

also laid down that sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only<br />

after charge memo / charge sheet is issued to the employee and that<br />

pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage is not sufficient<br />

to enable authorities to adopt the said procedure.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!