VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION -167
419
against him afresh. If he was actually guilty of some misconduct he
should have been punished at the conclusion of earlier inquiry itself.
(167)
(A) Misconduct — unbecoming conduct
Disciplinary authority is competent to decide which
are the actions which amount to conduct
unbecoming of a Government servant by looking to
circumstances, as it is not possible to lay down an
exhaustive list in Rules.
Rule 3(1)(iii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct)
Rules does not violate Art. 14 and Art. 19 of
Constitution.
(B) Evidence — defence evidence
Where the object of delinquent official in summoning
a witness is only to create harassment and
embarrassment, Inquiry Officer’s decision not to
summon him does not violate natural justice.
Inspecting Asst. Commissioner of Incometax
vs. Somendra Kumar Gupta,
1976(1) SLR CAL 143
The respondent, a Lower Division Clerk in the Incometax
Department at Calcutta, was charged with conduct unbecoming of a
Government servant as it was alleged that he entered the room of
the petitioner leading some members of the staff and used derogatory,
abusive and filthy language and disturbed him in the discharge of his
duties by continuously thumping on his table, that he held a
demonstration outside the office of the petitioner on another occasion
and on the third occasion he exhibited violent and unruly conduct to
the petitioner. During the inquiry he wanted to summon the
Commissioner of Incometax as a witness. This was not agreed to
by the Inquiry Officer as he felt that the evidence which the respondent