VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

576 DECISION - 272
internal structural alterations made in a property which fell within his
jurisdiction. The charge sheet mentioned that he joined duties in the
City Zone on 15-6-80 and that the construction had been completed
much before 14-1-84. The petitioner in his reply asserted that he
could not be held guilty as the unauthorised construction as per the
charge sheet was made before 14-1-84 but he joined duty only on
12-3-84. The inquiry nevertheless proceeded and the Vigilance
Inspector, examined as a witness at the inquiry, categorically stated
that the petitioner was working in the City Zone from 15-6-80 and
that the construction had been carried out prior to 14-1-84 and further
that on 31-1-85 when he and the petitioner visited the site no
construction was going on and there was no building material seen
at the site. The Municipal Corporation apparently realising its mistake
sent a corrigendum altering the date of the petitioner’s employment
in the original charge-sheet to 15-6-84 and the date of completion of
construction to 14-1-85. The inquiry ultimately resulted in the order
of dismissal dated 24-7-86, which was confirmed by an order dated
18-11-86. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Delhi High
Court.
The High Court observed that the effect of the corrigendum
would be to make out a new charge. However, the earlier inquiry was
not terminated and no new inquiry was commenced. Merely the witness
was recalled in the continued inquiry on 3-4-86 and he gave evidence
supporting the corrigendum. The High Court held that when the charge
sheet had been substantially altered, it has to be tried de novo and by
failing to do so, the petitioner was denied the opportunity to meet the
amended charge and he has not been allowed to file reply to the amended
charge. The inquiry proceedings are bad in law and the order of
termination as well as the appellate order have been quashed.
(272)
Suspension — besides transfer
Transfer and suspension of Government servant