VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION -283
595
Divisional Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Malda was dealt with
in departmental inquiry and compulsorily retired from service. An
appeal to the Chief Personnel Officer and a Review Petition to the
General Manager were rejected.
Before the central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta, the
applicant challenged the order on the ground that before submission
of his representation against the charge-sheet, the Inquiry Officer
was appointed which is not prescribed by the rules. The charge
sheet was issued on 4-7-85 and the petitioner submitted his
explanation on 10-7-85 and the Inquiry Officer was appointed before
that date, i.e. on 4-7-85. The Central Administrative Tribunal observed
that it is indeed an irregularity but had been cured before the inquiry
was started to be held. On a date subsequent to the filing of the
reply by the applicant, a fresh order was passed by the competent
authority appointing the inquiry officer. The Central Administrative
Tribunal observed that they did not find that any irregularity remained
thereafter.
(283)
Court jurisdiction
High Court competent to interfere in writ jurisdiction
in disciplinary proceedings where finding of guilty is
based on no evidence.
M. Janardhan vs. Asst. Wroks Manager, Reg. Workshop,
APSRTC, 1988(3) SLR AP 269
The petitioners were employees of Andhra Pradesh State
Road Transport Corporation. A departmental inquiry was held against
them on two charges: (i) that they assaulted Sri A.K. Reddy, Mechanic
in the staff bus and (ii) indulged in riotous and disorderly behaviour
which caused subversion of discipline in the workshop on 19-7-85
and a penalty of removal from service was imposed on them. The
petitioners filed writ petitions before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
The High Court observed that they cannot sit in appeal over