VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

692 DECISION - 344
Court also held that the Ministry of Finance has no jurisdiction to
issue the impugned directive to the banking institutions. The
punishment to be imposed whether minor or major depends upon
the nature of every case and the gravity of the misconduct proved
and the authorities have to exercise their judicial discretion and cannot
act under the dictation of the Central Vigilance Commission or of the
Central Government. No third party could dictate the disciplinary
authority or the appellate authority as to how they should exercise
their power and what punishment they should impose on the
delinquent officer.
The Supreme Court quashed the directive issued by the
Finance Ministry Dt.21.7.1984 and directed the Bank to withdraw the
two circular letters, and set aside the orders of the disciplinary authority
and appellate authority with a direction to dispose of the case in the
light of the observations.
(344)
Sealed cover procedure
(i) Sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only
after charge memo / charge sheet is issued to
employee. Pendency of preliminary investigation
prior to that stage is not sufficient to enable
authorities to adopt said procedure.
(ii) Employee cannot be deprived of benefits
including salary of promotional post, where he is
exonerated in the criminal / disciplinary proceedings
against him.
(iii) Employee found guilty of misconduct cannot be
placed on par with other employees.
Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman,
AIR 1991 SC 2010
These are criminal appeals arising out of the judgment dated
2-3-1987 delivered by the Full Bench of the Central Administrative