VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 306
629
It was contended by the appellant that there was no
communication of adverse entries. The Supreme Court observed
that ordinarily when the entries relate to specific instances leading to
adverse entries, the communication thereof is sent to the officer
concerned with a view to providing an opportunity for improvement
of performance. The entries against the appellant are mostly based
upon general assessment of the performance. The appellant was
communicated years back the general disapproval of his method of
working. The Supreme Court expressed satisfaction that the review
proceedings were in consonance with the guidelines framed by the
Government. The post in which the appellant was working was a
responsible one and poor performance could not be tolerated.
Compulsory retirement did not involve any stigma or implication of
misbehaviour or incapacity as laid down in Shyam Lal vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Union of India, 1955(1) SCR 26; AIR 1954 SC
369 by a constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.
(306)
(A) Disciplinary proceedings — competent authority
Memo letter of Deputy Inspector General informing
about selection cannot be considered to be letter of
appointment, order of appointment being issued
subsequently by Principal, Police Training College.
Order of dismissal of Sub-Inspector of Police passed
by Superintendent of Police, a coordinate authority,
held proper.
(B) Constitution of India — Art. 311(2) second proviso cl.(b)
(C) Inquiry — not practicable
(D) Court jurisdiction
Dispensing with inquiry on ground of witnesses not
coming forward out of fear held proper. Court cannot
sit in judgment over the relevancy of the reasons
given by disciplinary authority like a court of first