VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

314 DECISION - 86
(86)
(A) Disciplinary authority — disagreeing with Inquiry
Officer
(B) Inquiry report — disciplinary authority disagreeing
with findings
Disciplinary authority is free to disagree wholly or
partly with the Inquiring Officer since the latter acts
as his delegate. When the disciplinary authority
agrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority, it
is not obligatory on the part of disciplinary authority
to give reasons in support of the order. Where it
does not agree with the findings of the Inquiring
authority it is necessary to indicate reasons for
disagreement.
(C) Evidence — of suspicion
Mere suspicion can never take the place of proof
and evidence in disciplinary proceedings.
State of Madras vs. A.R. Srinivasan,
AIR 1966 SC 1827
An Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department of
Madras State was charged with corruption and an inquiry was
instituted. Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings framed five charges
and held three of them to have been proved and the remaining two
to be only at the stage of suspicion and recommended compulsory
retirement as punishment. Public Service Commission agreed with
the findings of the Tribunal and added that the prosecution evidence
as a whole left a strong suspicion of corrupt practice on the part of
the officer, although some of the individual instances could not stand
the test of strict legal proof as in a criminal case and recommended
the imposition of compulsory retirement. The Government issued a
show cause notice and retired him compulsorily with effect from the
date from which he was suspended. He appealed to the Governor and
it was rejected. A writ petition to the High Court was allowed, the High
Court holding that the impugned order was passed on mere suspicion
and as such was invalid. The State appealed to the Supreme Court.