VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 112
349
the College. The Managing Committee of the college resolved to
take disciplinary action against the Principal and an order suspending
him pending inquiry was passed by the Manager of the College. The
Principal filed a writ petition in the High Court for quashing the
suspension and obtained an ex parte order staying the operation of
suspension which was, however, vacated three months later.
Subsequently, he was served with a charge-sheet by the Manager
and one of the charges was for misappropriation of scholarship
amounts. Instead of submitting his explanation in respect of the
charge, the Principal moved the High Court for committal of the
Manager for contempt of Court. His contention was that the said
charge was the subject matter of the pending writ petition and as
such by launching a parallel disciplinary inquiry, contempt of court
had been committed. The High Court accepted the contention and
held the Manager guilty of contempt of Court.
The Manager filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order
of the High Court and dismissed the petition filed under the Contempt
of the Courts Act. It held that the pendency of the Court proceedings
does not bar disciplinary action. The power of taking such action
vested in the disciplinary authority. The initiation and continuation of
disciplinary proceeding in good faith is not calculated to obstruct or
interfere with the cause of justice in the pending court proceedings.
The employee is free to move the court for an order restraining the
continuance of the disciplinary proceedings. If he obtains a stay
order, a willful violation of the order would of course amount to
contempt of Court. In the absence of a stay order, the disciplinary
authority is free to exercise the lawful powers.
(112)
(A) Reversion (non-penal)
(B) Rules — retrospective operation