VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

714 DECISION - 352
13 charges are proved and advised “imposition of a major penalty
not less than removal from service” in its recommendation running
into 25 pages. The Disciplinary Authority held all the 8 charges held
proved by the C.V.C. as proved and imposed a lesser penalty differing
with the C.V.C.
The High Court quashed the order as being violative of the
principle of audi alteram partem for non-supply of copy of the C.V.C.
report. In an appeal against the High Court order, the Supreme Court
examined this question and held that the order of the Disciplinary
authority is vitiated for relying and acting on material which was not
only irrelevant but could not have been looked into. Purpose of
supplying document is to contest its veracity or give explanation. Nonsupply
of CVC recommendation which was prepared behind the back
of respondent without his participation, and one does not know on
what material, which was not only sent to the Disciplinary Authority
but was examined and relied, was certainly violative of procedural
safeguard and contrary to fair and just inquiry. Taking action against
an employee on confidential document which is the foundation of
order exhibits complete misapprehension about the procedure that
is required to be followed by the Disciplinary Authority. While rejecting
the contention of the State Bank of India that CVC recommendations
are confidential, the Supreme Court observed that recommendations
of Vigilance prior to initiation of proceedings are different from the
CVC recommendation which was the basis of the order passed by
the Disciplinary Authority.
(352)
Termination — of probationer
Service of probationer can be terminated taking into
consideration the overall performance, and any
complaint against the employee can be looked into
for assessment of his performance.