VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

454 DECISION - 193
constitute misconduct for disciplinary proceedings.
A look at the charges framed against the respondent would
affirmatively show that the charge inter alia alleged failure to take
any effective preventive measures meaning thereby error in judgment
in evaluating developing situation. Similarly, failure to visit the scenes
of disturbance is another failure to perform the duty in a certain
manner. Charges Nos. 2 and 5 clearly indicate the shortcomings in
the personal capacity or degree of efficiency of the respondent. It is
alleged that the respondent showed complete lack of leadership when
disturbances broke out and he disclosed complete inaptitude, lack
of foresight, lack of firmness and capacity to take firm decision. These
are personal qualities which a man holding a post of Deputy
Commissioner would be expected to possess. They may be relevant
considerations on the question of retaining him in the post or for
promotion, but such lack of personal quality cannot constitute
misconduct for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme
Court held that there are no acts and omissions which would render
the respondent liable for any of the punishments set out in rule 3. It
appears crystal clear that there was no case stricto sensu for a
disciplinary proceeding against the respondent.
(193)
(A) Cr.P.C. — Sec. 197
(B) Sanction of prosecution — under sec. 197 Cr.P.C.
Sanction not necessary under sec. 197(1) Cr.P.C.
for the prosecution for offence under secs. 409/120-
B IPC.
S.B. Saha vs. M.S. Kochar,
AIR 1979 SC 1841
The Supreme Court held that the sine qua non for the
applicability of sec. 197 Cr.P.C. is that the offence charged, be it one
of commission or omission, must be one which has been committed