VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 262
559
on merits. The Division Bench modified the order of the single judge
by setting aside the direction for reinstatement of the respondent in
service and permitting the disciplinary authority to proceed further
with the disciplinary proceedings from the stage of giving a fresh
notice to show cause against the punishment to be proposed by him.
The appellants appealed against the order of the Division Bench of
the High Court before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court observed that both the Division Bench
and the single Judge of the High Court had completely overlooked
the fact that the Constitution (42nd amendment) Act, 1976 has deleted
from clause (2) of Art. 311 of Constitution the requirement of a
reasonable opportunity of making representation on the proposed
penalty and further it has been expressly provided in the first proviso
to clause (2) that “it shall not be necessary to give such person any
opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed”. After
the amendment, the requirement of clause (2) will be satisfied by
holding an inquiry in which the Government servant has been informed
of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of
being heard. The Supreme Court also pointed out that in view of the
amendment of Art. 311(2) of Constitution, rule 15(4) of the Central
Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 was amended. The Supreme Court
also drew attention to the decision of a five-Judge Bench of the
Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Tulsi Ram Patel
(1985(2) SLR SC 576).
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division
Bench of the High Court and remanded the case back to the Division
Bench for disposal of the appeal on merits after giving the parties an
opportunity of being heard.
(262)
(A) P.C. Act, 1988 — Secs. 7, 11
(i) Sec. 165 IPC (corresponding to sec. 11 of P.C.
Act, 1988), wider in ambit than sec. 161 IPC
(corresponding to sec. 7 of P.C. Act, 1988).