VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 294
615
the case on the basis of material on record and was entitled to take
into consideration the judgment of the court.
(294)
(A) Constitution of India — Art. 311(2) second proviso
cl.(b)
(B) Inquiry — not practicable
(i) That delinquent officials get the inquiry delayed
and therefore corrupt officers should not be allowed
to manage their way to escape punishment is no
ground to dispense with the inquiry.
(ii) Disciplinary Authority’s decision that it is not
reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry is not
binding upon the court.
Gurumukh Singh vs. Haryana State Electricity Board,
1988 (5) SLR P&H 112
The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer in the Harayana State
Electricity Board, was removed from service by order dated 24.02.85,
without holding an inquiry proper.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana observed that merely
because the departmental enquiries ordered by it against delinquent
officials get delayed and in the meanwhile such delinquent and corrupt
officials manage their way to escape punishment would not be a
ground to dispense with the procedure of affording reasonable
opportunity. Every quasi-judicial order which visits evil consequences
on a citizen has to comply with the rules of natural justice. Expediency
cannot override the rule of law. Apprehension that the inquiry may
be long-drawn is no ground to dispense with the procedure provided
by the Regulations for inquiry.
The finality given by clause (3) of Art. 311 to the disciplinary
authority’s decision that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the
enquiry is not binding upon the Court. The court will also examine