VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

546 DECISION - 254
a similar charge-sheet had been set aside by the Civil Court.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that the
judgment of the Civil Court clearly shows that the petitioner’s dismissal
from service in pursuance of the earlier inquiry was set aside because
the inquiry officer did not afford a reasonable opportunity to him to
defend himself and as such the inquiry was improper and violative of
the principles of natural justice. The State therefore cannot be
considered barred to institute a fresh inquiry on the same charge.
(254)
Satyavir Singh vs. Union of India,
1986(1) SLR SC 255 : 1986 (1) SLJ 1 : AIR 1986 SC 555
(See decision No. 240)
(255)
(A) Constitution of India — Art. 311(2) second proviso
cl.(b)
(B) Inquiry — not practicable
Not necessary that disciplinary authority should wait
until incidents take place in which physical injury is
caused before taking action for dispensing with
inquiry under clause (b) of second proviso to Art.
311(2) of Constitution.
(C) Order — in cyclostyled form
Cyclostyled orders prima facie show non-application
of mind but not a universal rule. It would depend
upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
Shivaji Atmaji Sawant vs. State of Maharashtra,
1986(1) SLR SC 495
The appellant, Shivaji Atmaji Sawant, was a Police Constable
in the Bombay City Police Force attached to the Bandra Police Station