VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 49
261
the appellant. The President after considering the entire record
ordered removal of the appellant with immediate effect from 25-1-
51. The Appellant moved the Punjab High Court and his petition
was dismissed and the order was maintained. In the Supreme Court,
the appellant attacked the impugned order on three grounds, namely
that he had been removed for negligence and disobedience of orders
with which he was never charged, that the punishment meted out to
him is different from the punishment proposed and that the Postmaster
General had been examined by the Service Commission at his back.
The Supreme Court held that although the charge-sheet did
not in so many words talk of negligence and disobedience of orders
yet the charges considered as a whole leave no doubt that these
were also substantially the subject of enquiry. Regarding infliction of
penalty it was observed that employee can always be given a lesser
penalty than the proposed higher penalty. On the question of evidence
called for by the Service Commission, it was held that the opinion of
the Union Public Service Commission was only advisory and the
President was not bound to follow the same and that the order did
not show that the President had relied upon the evidence of the
Postmaster General in passing the order of removal.
The Supreme Court also held that in imposing the punishment
of removal the Government did not violate the guarantee of
reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed
to be taken and the Government servant was afforded an opportunity
to make his defence.
(49)
(A) Fresh inquiry / De novo inquiry
(B) Suspension — issue of fresh order
Where departmental proceedings are quashed by civil
court on technical ground of irregularity in procedure
and where merits of the charge were never
investigated, fresh departmental inquiry can be held
on same facts and a fresh order of suspension passed.