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.

228 DECISION - 25<br />

service. You should also state in your reply whether you wish to be<br />

heard in person or whether you will produce defence. The reply<br />

should reach the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Delhi<br />

within ten days from the receipt of the charge-sheet.”<br />

The appellant attended two sittings before the Inquiry Officer<br />

and then applied to the Deputy Commissioner to entrust the enquiry<br />

to some Gazetted Officer under him. The request was rejected. The<br />

appellant did not attend any further sitting before the Inquiry Officer.<br />

At this stage, the delinquent was involved in a criminal case under<br />

section 307 of Penal Code, but was eventually discharged from the<br />

criminal charge. After some time the delinquent official was served<br />

with a notice that he should appear before the A.D.M. in connection<br />

with the departmental inquiry pending against him. Pursuant to the<br />

notice, he appeared before the A.D.M. While submitting his report,<br />

the A.D.M. suggested that he should be dismissed from service. The<br />

Deputy Commissioner, who was the disciplinary authority, agreed<br />

with the suggestion and a formal order was issued accordingly. The<br />

appellant appealed to the Chief Commissioner but his appeal was<br />

dismissed. The appellant thereafter filed a suit complaining that Art.<br />

311(2) of Constitution had not been complied with. The suit was<br />

decreed by the Subordinate Judge, declaring that the dismissal was<br />

void and inoperative. The Union of India preferred an appeal against<br />

the above judgment but the appeal was dismissed by the Senior<br />

Subordinate Judge. A second appeal was filed by the State and the<br />

single Judge of the Punjab High Court held that there had been a<br />

substantial compliance with the provisions of Art. 311 and accordingly<br />

accepted the appeal and set aside the decree of the Court below.<br />

The officer appealed to the Supreme Court.<br />

The Supreme Court held that the language of Art. 311 is<br />

prohibitory in form and is inconsistent with its being merely permissive<br />

and as such this article is proviso to Art. 310 which provides that<br />

every person falling within it holds office during the pleasure of the<br />

President. Reasonable opportunity envisaged in Art. 311 includes:<br />

(a) an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence, which<br />

he can only do if he is told what the charges leveled against him and

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!