VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 86
315
Before the Supreme Court, it was contended on behalf of
the respondent that disciplinary proceedings are in the nature of quasijudicial
proceedings and when the Government passed the impugned
order against the respondent, it was acting in a quasi-judicial character
and should have indicated some reasons as to why it accepted the
findings of the Tribunal. The Supreme Court did not accept the
contention. It observed that disciplinary proceedings begin with an
inquiry conducted by an officer appointed in that behalf. The inquiry is
followed by a report and the Public Service Commission is consulted
where necessary. Having regard to the material which is thus made
available to the State Government and to the delinquent officer also, it
seemed somewhat unreasonable to suggest that State Government
must record its reasons why it accepts the findings of the Tribunal. It
is conceivable that if the State Government does not accept the findings
of the Tribunal which may be in favour of the delinquent officer and
proposes to impose a penalty, it should give reasons why it differs
from the conclusions of the Tribunal, though even in such a case, it is
not necessary that the reasons should be detailed or elaborate.
On behalf of the State, it was contended that the High Court
erred in holding that the retirement order was passed merely on
suspicion. On construction of relevant orders, the Supreme Court
held, that although the Commission had given its recommendation
in somewhat ambiguous words, in the first part of their communication
they had expressed a general agreement with the findings of the
Tribunal. Read in this context it only meant that the Commission had
agreed with the charges to have been proved. The second portion
of their reference to G.O. No.902 Public (Services) which indicated
that even though guilt was not established against public servant by
proof as in a criminal case, the fact that the officer’s reputation was
notoriously bad, afforded a just ground for the Government to refuse
to continue to be served by such an officer in any department. As
such, the order of compulsory retirement could not be held to be
illegal or passed merely on suspicion, though the view expressed in
G.O.No. 902 Public (Services) was open to serious objection in as
much as even in disciplinary proceedings, notwithstanding the fact
the technicalities of criminal law could not be invoked, the charges