VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

748 DECISION - 374
petitioner contended that the respondent has no jurisdiction to order
a fresh inquiry in the absence of any fatal defect in the first inquiry.
The High Court observed that the second inquiry is not
initiated based upon the very same facts and that the disciplinary
authority has secured fresh material against the delinquent that he
obtained the passport concealing that he is the employee of the Board,
which justifies the initiation of a second disciplinary inquiry. The High
Court did not find any objection in the appointment of a second inquiry
officer as the first Inquiry Officer has since retired. High Court also
upheld that rule 9 (2) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 provides
that the departmental proceedings, if instituted while the Government
servant was in service, after his retirement shall be deemed to be
proceedings under Rule 9 of the said rules, and shall be continued
and concluded as if the Government servant had continued in service.
(374)
Departmental action and acquittal
In a case of acquittal in a court of law on ground of
witnesses turning hostile, disciplinary authority
entitled to evaluate evidence adduced at the inquiry
held by him and arrive at an independent decision.
G. Simhachalam vs. Depot Manager, APSRTC,
1994 (2) SLR AP 547
The petitioner, a driver of APSTRC, was acquitted in a case
of prosecution under Sec. 304-A IPC for causing the death of a motor
cyclist by rash and negligent driving. But, as the acquittal was only
for technical reasons as the material witnesses turned hostile,
departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated in the same
matter.
The High Court observed that it is true that when a competent
criminal court holds a trial of a charge of rash and negligent driving
and records a finding of acquittal after discussion of evidence and