VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 114
353
satisfied that there was a stigma attaching to the reversion and that
it was not a pure accident of service, as seen from the letter of the
Cabinet Secretary and the affidavit. The appellant was holding a
tenure post and the words ‘until further orders’ in the notification
appointing him as Secretary do not indicate that this was a deputation
which could be terminated at any time. The fact that it was found to
break into his tenure period close to its end must be read in
conjunction with the three alternatives and they clearly demonstrate
that the intention was to reduce him in rank by sheer pressure of
denying him a Secretaryship. His retention in Government of India
on a lower post thus was a reduction in rank. His reversion to Assam
State was also reduction in rank. To give him choice of choosing
between reversion to a post carrying a lower salary or staying in the
Centre on a lower salaried post, was to indirectly reduce him in rank.
He was being sent to Assam not because of exigency of service but
definitely because he was not required for reasons connected with
his work and conduct. The order was quashed as it was made without
following the procedure laid down in Art. 311(2) of Constitution.
(114)
Inquiry — ex parte
Ex parte proceedings are justified where
Government servant declines to take part in the
proceedings.
Jagdish Sekhri vs. Union of India,
1970 SLR DEL 571
The petitioner was a clerk in the Headquarters Office of
Northern Railway. He was placed under suspension on 21-7-65 and
a memorandum of charges consisting of 5 charges was issued on
17-9-65. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry ex parte, as the
petitioner did not attend the inquiry, and submitted his report. The