VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 371
745
DEL FB 79) that their attention was not drawn to any other provision
from which an inference can be drawn that imposing of more than
one penalty simultaneously in a disciplinary proceeding is not
permissible, and that judicial notice can be taken of a large number
of instances where more than one penalty is imposed, which aspect
has been adverted to in the letter of D.G., P&T No.105/26181, Dated
30.03.81.
The Tribunal observed that the question of double jeopardy
as envisaged under Article 20(2) of Constitution does not arise in
regard to disciplinary proceedings where the oath cannot be
administered to the witness. In fact there was only one disciplinary
enquiry. There is no controversy in regard to the fact that the
department sustained loss of Rs.18,900 due to the negligence of the
applicant. Recovery can be ordered by way of punishment under
cl.(iii) of Rule 11. Thus there is no infirmity in imposing the penalties
of recovery and reduction to the lower scale, in the circumstances of
the case.
(371)
Misconduct — prior to entry in service
Disciplinary authority has jurisdiction to punish for
act done prior to entry in service.
T. Panduranga Rao vs. Union of India,
1994(1) SLJ CAT HYD 127
The applicant was appointed as Telecom Officer Assistant
on 6-7-81 and was dismissed from service on the charge that he
furnished false date of birth in the attestation form dated 17-3-81, as
15-6-1957. The issue raised is whether the disciplinary authority
has no jurisdiction to punish the employee for an act done prior to his
entering government service.
The Central Administrative Tribunal referred to the decision
of the Allahabad High Court in Abdul Aziz Khan vs. Union of India,