VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 164
413
Proceedings not the same as prosecution in a
criminal case.
(C) Preliminary enquiry report
Charged official not entitled to supply of copy of ‘B’
Report and Investigation Report of Anti-Corruption
Bureau, when they are not relied upon by the
Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings.
State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Chitra Venkata Rao,
AIR 1975 SC 2151
The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (Andhra Pradesh)
conducted an inquiry. Three charges were framed that he claimed
false travelling allowance in the months of Jan., April and Sept. 1964.
On 9-12-68, the Tribunal recommended dismissal of the respondent
from service. The Government gave notice on 22-2-69 to show cause
why the penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed on
him. On 20-3-69, the respondent submitted his written explanation
and Government by an order dated 24-5-69 dismissed him from
service.
The respondent challenged the order of dismissal in the High
Court, and by judgment dated 27-7-70, the High Court set aside the
order of dismissal on the ground that the recommendations of the
Tribunal were not communicated to the respondent along with the
notice regarding the proposed punishment of dismissal and observed
that it was open to the authority to issue a fresh show cause notice
after communicating the inquiry report and the recommendations of
the Tribunal. The Government cancelled the order of dismissal dated
24-5-69 and issued fresh notices dated 16-9-70 and 25-9-70 to the
respondent and communicated the report and the recommendations
of the Tribunal and the Vigilance Commission, regarding the proposed
penalty. The respondent submitted his explanation on 6/23-10-70.
The Government considered the same and by an order dated 5-5-72
dismissed the respondent from service.