VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 246
537
A Junior Engineer in the Madras Telephones was dealt with
in disciplinary proceedings on charges regarding dereliction in the
performance of his duties. The inquiry had to be held ex parte due to
almost complete non-cooperation on his part. On the basis of the
report of the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order
imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement. His departmental
appeal was rejected.
On the question of date of service of the order, the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Madras observed that the order imposing
the penalty dated 28-7-1977 was sent by registered post to the
applicant but it was refused to be accepted. The Tribunal observed
that this would not mean that the order was not delivered and hence
the applicant gets indefinite time limit for preferring an appeal. The
Tribunal held that the time limit of 45 days for filing would start from
the date of refusal, which was 29-7-1977 according to the post office
endorsement.
(246)
Incumbant in leave vacancy — competence to exercise
power
Officer appointed in leave vacancy of competent
authority without any restriction can exercise power
of such authority to dismiss an employee.
Ch. Yugandhar vs. Director General of Posts,
1986(3) SLR AP 346
The petitioner, a Postal Official, was dismissed from service
by an order passed by Sri G.Narasimhamurthy, who was only acting
in the post of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Peddapalli. It was
contended by the petitioner that as such he was not competent to
exercise the disciplinary powers.
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh referred to the order
appointing Sri Narasimhamurthy to act as Superintendent of Post
Offices. The operative portion reads that “Sri G. Narasimhamurthy,
Officiating HSG I Post Master, Rajahmundry H.O. (from I.P.O’s Line)