VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 336
679
A Superintendent of Police was dealt with in minor penalty
proceedings. The incident occurred in Nov. 1981 and the charge
was issued in Aug. 1982. The charged official submitted his
explanation in June 1984 and after a delay of 6 years, a minor penalty
of withholding of increment for two years without cumulative effect
was imposed on him. The State Government took nearly 3 years
before it consulted the UPSC and the latter gave its advice on
21.9.1989.
The Tribunal observed that there are several decisions that
the delay in initiation of disciplinary proceeding or in the framing of
charge after a long delay may lead to the delinquent official not being
able to remember the facts and satisfactorily to defend himself.
However, in the present case, the letter of charge was framed without
any delay. The mere fact of the delay in arriving at a finding and
imposing the punishment cannot amount to a denial of opportunity to
satisfactorily defend himself. There are no specific decisions wherein
merely on the ground of delay in completing the inquiry, the charge
has been quashed. In this view, the Tribunal held that they did not
consider that the delay in the passing of the order of punishment
vitiates the inquiry proceedings.
(336)
Misconduct — misappropriation
‘Misappropriation’ to be given dictionary meaning
in disciplinary proceedings.
M.A. Narayana Setty vs. Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Cuddapah,
1991(8) SLR AP 682
The High Court observed that the definition of
misappropriation given in the Indian Penal Code is for purposes of
offences punishable under the Penal Code. That definition cannot
be