VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

472 DECISION - 203
established and his conduct which led to his conviction was made
the basis for imposing the penalty of dismissal. The High Court held
that the impugned order of dismissal was validly made.
(203)
(A) Exoneration
Order of exoneration after completion of regular
departmental inquiry to be considered as an order
under the Rules.
(B) Revision / Review
No power conferred on authorities to review own
orders, by (unamended) rule 29 Central Civil
Services (CCA) Rules, 1965.
R.K. Gupta vs. Union of India,
1981(1) SLR DEL 752
The petitioner was a Class I Senior Scale Officer of the
Central Government. The President by order dated 4-9-73 directed
that the charges framed against the petitioner be dropped. Later,
memorandum dated 15-2-75 was served on him informing that the
President had undertaken a review of his earlier order and proposed
the imposing of penalty of dismissal. The President passed order of
dismissal but it was not communicated in view of writ petition filed by
the petitioner before the Delhi High Court and orders of the High
Court.
The Delhi High Court considered the question of competence
of the President to review his earlier order of exoneration. The High
Court observed that the facts are not in dispute. The charges were
dropped by the President as per memo dated 4-9-73. The President,
however, reviewed his earlier order on the initiative by the Central
Bureau of Investigation and issued the memo of 15-2-75, proposing
the penalty of dismissal. The Public Service Commission suggested
the imposition of penalty of dismissal.