VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 130
373
Where there is a departmental inquiry against a public servant
resulting either in exoneration of or infliction of penalty for any of the
charges levelled against him, there can be no second departmental
inquiry on the same set of facts unless there is any specific rule or
law governing the service conditions of such an employee
empowering the appointing authority or any one authorised by him to
revise or order fresh inquiry. The petitioner is not liable to be
proceeded against for the third time on the basis of the conviction by
the criminal court for the same offence of misappropriation.
(130)
(A) P.C. Act, 1988 — Sec. 19
(B) Sanction of prosecution — under P.C. Act
A dismissed public servant does not need sanction
of prosecution under P.C. Act for the reason that he
is treated as a member of Central Civil Service for
purpose of appeal or that appeal is pending against
the order.
C.R. Bansi vs. State of Maharashtra,
1971 Cri.L.J. SC 662
The Supreme Court held that the expression in the
explanation in Rule 23 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules,
1957 that a ‘member of a Central Civil Service’ includes a person
who has ceased to be a member of the service was restricted to that
particular rule for giving the dismissed servant a right to prefer an
appeal. In that view of the matter the Supreme Court agreed with
the conclusion of the Special Judge that the appellant cannot invoke
the aid of explanation for being treated as a public servant requiring
sanction for his prosecution under sec. 6 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947 (corresponding to sec. 19 of the P.C. Act, 1988).
The Supreme Court also held that the fact that the appeal
against dismissal order is pending cannot make him a public servant.