VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

348 DECISION - 111
does not attach stigma and does not attract the provisions
of Art. 311 of Constitution.
Union of India vs. Prem Parkash Midha,
1969 SLR SC 655
The respondent was recruited as a temporary Junior Clerk. While
officiating as Upper Division Clerk, he overstayed leave and did not report
for duty. A notice was served requiring him to show cause why disciplinary
action should not be taken for absenting himself from duty. The respondent
submitted his explanation but no disciplinary action was taken. In exercise
of the power under the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules,
1949, his services were terminated. The order was challenged by the
respondent as ultra vires, illegal and ineffective.
The Supreme Court observed that the order did not purport
to cast any stigma upon the respondent. Though a threat that
disciplinary action would be taken against him was made, no
disciplinary action as such was commenced. Any order which does
not contain any express word of stigma attaching to the conduct of
the employee could not be treated as an order of punishment under
Art. 311 of Constitution.
(111)
(A) Departmental action and prosecution
(B) Contempt of Court
Pendency of Court proceedings does not bar
disciplinary action or constitute contempt of court
in the absence of order of court restraining
continuance of the disciplinary proceedings.
Jang Bahadur Singh vs. Baij Nath Tiwari,
AIR 1969 SC 30
The respondent was the Principal of Hiralal Memorial
Intermediate College, Bhaurauli and the appellant is the Manager of