VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 360
727
and the disciplinary authority feels that the inquiring authority has not
properly appreciated the evidence and has not reached the correct
conclusion, it is always open to it to depart from the same and reach
its own conclusion. In the instant cases, the order shows the
disciplinary authority merely to have held that the required evidence
has not been properly presented in the inquiry. This by itself can
hardly be a reason for directing a fresh inquiry. There is absolutely
no fact indicated as to how the conclusion was reached or in what
way available evidence was not presented. The order is extremely
vague on the face of it and in terms does not satisfy the requirements
of Rule 50 (3) (i) as the statement made in the order can hardly be
said as the reasons recorded, to justify direction for holding a fresh
inquiry.
(360)
Departmental action — delay in
Proceedings quashed where it took ten years to
serve show cause notice and matter remained
pending for ten years thereafter without final orders.
Jagir Singh vs. State of Punjab,
1993 (1) SLR P&H 1
The High Court observed that it is no doubt correct and
reasonable also that departmental proceedings initiated against the
employees should be finalised expeditiously. Expeditious disposal
helps the employer as well as the employees and lessens the financial
burden in most of the cases, where the employees are either placed
under suspension or their promotions etc are deferred during the
pendency of the inquiry. But, for how many months a particular
departmental inquiry can be allowed to continue and after the expiry
of how many months the approval of the Head of the department /
the Secretary to Government / the Chief Secretary / the Minister
Incharge, or the Cabinet (Council of Ministers) has to be obtained or