VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 408
795
appellate forum de hors the limitation of judicial review. This is one
such instance where a member had exceeded his power of judicial
review in quashing the suspension order and charges even at the
threshold. We are coming across frequently such orders putting
heavy pressure on this Court to examine each case in detail. It is
high time that it is remedied.” The Supreme Court allowed the appeals
and set aside the order of the tribunal.
(408)
(A) Disciplinary proceedings — initiation of
(B) Disciplinary authority — subordinate authority
framing charges and conducting inquiry
Not necessary that charges should be framed only
by an authority competent to impose proposed
penalty or that inquiry should be conducted by such
authority.
Inspector General of Police vs. Thavasiappan,
1996 (2) SLR SC 470 : AIR 1996 SC 1318
A Departmental proceeding was initiated against the
respondent, a Sub-Inspector of Police, on an allegation of misconduct
committed by him. A Dy. Superintendent of Police was appointed as
an Inquiry Officer and he framed the charges and served the same
on the respondent. He then held an inquiry and submitted his report
to the DIG of Police, who was competent to award the proposed
penalty. The DIG agreed with the findings recorded by the inquiry
officer and imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement. The
respondent filed an appeal against that order to the Inspector General
of Police and it was dismissed. The respondent approached the
Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal and it accepted the contention of
the respondent that the charge memo should be issued by the
disciplinary authority empowered to impose the penalty specified
therein and if any lower authority has initiated proceedings by issuing