VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 195
457
on 2-12-74 and 29-1-75. While departmental proceedings were
pending, he was permitted to retire from service on superannuation
on 31-3-78. On 13-2-80, the Divisional Panchayat Officer launched
criminal prosecution against the petitioner for offences punishable
under sections 409, 471 I.P.C. and the Court took the complaint on
file. The petitioner approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court for
quashing the proceedings.
It was contended by the petitioner that if no criminal
prosecution is initiated against him during the tenure of his office or
re-employment, no criminal prosecution can be launched against him
after his retirement in regard to misconduct of more than four years
old by the date of the prosecution, as per proviso (c) to Art. 351A of
Andhra Pradesh Pension Code (corresponding to rule 9 of
A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980).
The High Court held that the prohibition against the institution
of a judicial proceeding in respect of a cause of action which arose
or an event which took place more than four years before such
institution, as contained in the proviso (c) is only for the purpose of
exercising the power reserved under Art. 351A and not for any other
purpose. The prohibitory words in the proviso (c) cannot be construed
as bar against criminal prosecution in general for the purpose of
punishment under that law. The High Court dismissed the petition.
(195)
Penalty — dismissal of already-dismissed employee
There is no bar for two separate pending inquiries
against a public servant, to conclude one after the
other, and for recording two separate orders of
dismissal, but at one point of time only one order
can operate. An order of dismissal can be passed
on the conclusion of the second enquiry as well in
the absence of a specific legal bar.