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.

DECISION - 344<br />

697<br />

and the official may be assigned his place in the seniority list as he<br />

would have got, in accordance with the recommendation of the D.P.C.<br />

Paras 5, 6 and 7 of the Memorandum then read as follows:-<br />

“5. Where the acquittal in a Court case is not on merits but<br />

purely on technical grounds, and the Government either proposes to<br />

take the matter to a higher Court or to proceed against the officer<br />

departmentally, the appointing authority may review whether the ad<br />

hoc promotion should be continued.<br />

“6. Where the acquittal by Court is on technical grounds, if the<br />

Government does not propose to go in appeal to a higher Court or to<br />

take further departmental action, action should be taken in the same<br />

manner as if the officer had been acquitted by the Court on merits.<br />

“7. If the officer concerned is not acquitted / exonerated in<br />

the Court proceedings or the departmental proceedings, the ad hoc<br />

promotion already granted should be brought to an end by the issue<br />

of the “further order” contemplated in the order of ad hoc promotion<br />

and the officer concerned reverted to the post from which he was<br />

promoted on ad hoc basis. After such reversion, the officer may be<br />

considered for future promotion in the usual course by the next D.P.C.”<br />

To bring the record up to date, it may be pointed out that in<br />

view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Tajinder<br />

Singh, (1986) 2 Scale 860, decided on September 26, 1986, the<br />

Government of India in the Department of Personnel and Training<br />

issued another Office Memorandum No. 22011/2/86 Estta.(A) dated<br />

January 12, 1988 in supersession of all the earlier instructions on<br />

the subject including the Office Memorandum dated 30th January,<br />

1982 referred to above. There is no difference in the instructions<br />

contained in this and the earlier aforesaid Memorandum of January<br />

30, 1982, except that this Memorandum provides in paragraph 4 for<br />

a six monthly review of the pending proceedings against the<br />

Government servant where the proceedings are still at the stage of

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!