VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 328
671
were void and illegal. The High Court observed that the expression
used in Regulations 6(6) of the Canara Bank officers Employees
(D&A) Regulations is ‘may’ and though ‘may’ may not in all
circumstances, be indicative of a discretion, having regard to the
scheme of the Regulations and the provisions, there is no sufficient
justification to hold that the appointment of the presenting officer is a
mandatory provision, the non-compliance of which will render the
inquiry invalid. Further at no stage, the petitioner objected to the
examination of witnesses by the Inquiry Officer nor did he insist that
a presenting officer should be appointed. It is also not shown that
the delinquent official was prejudiced in any way as a result of failure
to appoint a presenting officer or that the Inquiry Officer exposed a
biased state of mind in putting questions to the witnesses. The High
Court held that the inquiry is not vitiated by reasons of failure to appoint
a presenting officer.
The High Court held no illegality or impropriety has been
committed and no prejudice caused by the Inquiry Officer in
questioning the delinquent, the examination being intended only to
give him an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing
against him as required under Regulation 6 (17).
(328)
Sealed cover procedure
Promotion may be deferred where charge has been
framed in disciplinary proceedings or charge-sheet
has been filed in criminal case.
C.O. Armugam vs. State of Tamil Nadu,
1990(1) SLR SC 288
The Supreme Court held that it is necessary to state that
every civil servant has a right to have his case considered for
promotion according to his turn and it is a guarantee flowing from
Arts. 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The consideration of promotion
could be postponed only on reasonable grounds. To avoid
arbitrariness, it would be better to follow certain uniform principles.