VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

614 DECISION - 293
The petitioner, an Assistant Soil Conservation Officer in
Madhya Pradesh, was convicted for an offence of rape under section
376 IPC committed while on duty and sentenced to 2 years R.I. and
fine of Rs. 100 on 16-12-69. Consequently, the petitioner was
dismissed by order dated 19-5-70. On appeal, the High Court
expressed the view that the woman worker was subjected to sexual
intercourse but it was not proved beyond doubt that the sexual
intercourse was committed without her consent and held that the
case was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted him.
As a result, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 22-3-73. The
Disciplinary Authority issued a charge-sheet dated 17-1-74 and
dismissed him from service after holding an inquiry.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that a decision
to hold the inquiry should be reached by the Disciplinary Authority so
as to save the unnecessary harassment of the Government servant.
This requirement remains fully satisfied as the respondent Director,
who admittedly is the Disciplinary Authority, applied its mind to the
facts and circumstances of the case and upheld the order of issuing
the charge-sheet and appointing the Inquiry Officer. The legal effect
is that the respondent Director adopted the charge sheet and the
inquiry proceedings as the basis for taking further action against the
petitioner and hence legal defect, if any, remains fully removed. What
is required is the substance or meat of the matter and not technicalities
thereof. The High Court held that there was no defect in the charge
sheet and the appointment of the Inquiry Officer.
The Inquiry Officer acted on the finding of the High Court
that the petitioner had committed sexual intercourse with the woman
worker during the course of employment and held the petitioner guilty
of the misconduct. The High Court rejected the contention that the
Inquiry Officer should not have looked into the judgment of the High
Court and should have recorded his own independent finding. The
judgment was produced before the Inquiry Officer and was a part of
the record. The Inquiry Officer was under a legal obligation to decide