VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

354 DECISION -115
Disciplinary Authority, after giving show cause notice, ordered his
removal from service. Departmental appeal has been rejected. He
filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court.
The High Court observed that the charge sheet was sent to
the petitioner through registered letters twice. The registered covers
were received back as refused. Then a telegram was sent to the
petitioner and on receipt of the telegram he appeared before the
Inquiry Officer for inquiry. Again, he did not appear before the Inquiry
Officer even though he was informed of the date of conducting the
inquiry. Thereupon, ex parte proceedings were taken against him
and he was removed from service. The High Court held that the
petitioner deliberately refrained from participating in the inquiry and
adopted an obstructionist attitude to the conduct of the proceedings.
Though the petitioner did not in terms refuse to participate, his conduct
was tantamount to his declining to take part in the proceedings. It is
noteworthy that he did not even file a written reply to the charge
sheet. Notice was given at every stage of the inquiry but the conduct
of the petitioner was to stultify the inquiry by adopting an attitude
which was far from commendable. All that was required in
departmental inquiry was that a reasonable opportunity should be
given and trying to serve the petitioner by registered post
acknowledgment due was more than reasonable. If the petitioner
chose to refuse service he must pay for the consequences.
(115)
(A) Misconduct — gravity of
(B) Penalty — quantum of
(C) Court jurisdiction
There can be no precise scale of graduation in order
to arithmetically compare the gravity of one
misconduct from the other. Reasons which induce
punishing authority are not justiciable; nor is the
penalty open to review by Court.