05.04.2013 Views

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

666 DECISION -324<br />

the punishing authority reversed that finding and imposed major<br />

punishment on the delinquent. Two, on the facts of that case, the<br />

recovery of the bearings had, in fact, taken place in the presence of<br />

the Chief Engineer who was the punishing authority and in the course<br />

of the investigation of a criminal case for theft, the police had recorded<br />

statement under sec. 161 Cr.P.C. of the Chief Engineer in which he<br />

stated about the recovery of the stolen bearings from the delinquent<br />

in his presence. In view of these peculiar facts it was observed that<br />

the enquiry was vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice<br />

as the Chief Engineer was both a witness as well as a Judge. In the<br />

present case, on the other hand, there is nothing to show that the<br />

General Manager was physically present at the time of the checking.<br />

The General Manager is the senior-most officer who heads a depot.<br />

He can supervise various checking parties without being physically<br />

present with any of these parties. However, the inquiry was held by<br />

an officer of the office of the Divisional Manager, Transport<br />

Department, Jalandhar. There is total absence of any personal bias<br />

of the General Manager against the appellant. This is, therefore, not<br />

a case of personal bias nor in the facts of the case can it be held that<br />

there was bias in law. The supervision of the employees in regard to<br />

their duties is an important function of the General Manager and if he<br />

discharges that function it cannot be said that there is legal bias in<br />

his action.<br />

The High Court considered the last contention that the<br />

appellate authority, the Divisional Manager, Transport Department,<br />

failed to observe rule 19 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment<br />

and Appeal) Rules, 1970. The High Court observed that in the order<br />

passed by the appellate authority, the factual background was given,<br />

the material facts with regard to the inquiry leading to the order of<br />

removal were mentioned giving details of the progress of the inquiry<br />

on various dates and the conduct of the delinquent. The various<br />

grievances raised by the delinquent in the appeal were listed and an

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!