VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

460 DECISION -197
be represented through lawyer causes no prejudice.
(C) Vigilance Commission — consultation with
Disciplinary authority consulting Vigilance
Commission, not illegal. Not necessary to furnish
copy of report of Vigilance Commissioner to
delinquent when reference to it is not made in
disciplinary authority’s findings.
Sunil Kumar Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal,
1980(2) SLR SC 147
The appellant, a member of the Indian Administrative Service,
was working as Divisional Commissioner, North Bengal.
Departmental action was instituted and a penalty of reduction in time
scale of pay was imposed on him. His appeals to the single Judge
and the Division Bench of the High Court were dismissed.
The Supreme Court held that the disciplinary authority
committed no serious or material irregularity in consulting the Vigilance
Commissioner, even assuming that it was so done. The conclusion
of the disciplinary authority was not based on the advice tendered by
the Vigilance Commissioner but was arrived at independently on the
basis of the charges, the relevant material placed before the inquiry
officer in support of the charges and the defence of the delinquent
officer. In fact, the final conclusions of the disciplinary authority on
the several charges are so much at variance with the opinion of the
Vigilance Commissioner that it is impossible to say that the disciplinary
authority’s mind was in any manner influenced by the advice tendered
by the Vigilance Commissioner.
The Supreme Court rejected the contention of the appellant
that a copy of the report of the Vigilance Commissioner should have
been made available to him. There was no reference to the views of
the Vigilance Commissioner in the preliminary findings of the
disciplinary authority communicated to him, and it was unnecessary
for the disciplinary authority to furnish the appellant with a copy of