VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

806 DECISION - 415
charges of demand and acceptance turned hostile, the solitary
evidence of PW.1 is without corroboration of material particulars
and is not sufficient for order of dismissal. The Evidence Act has no
application in disciplinary proceedings. The report of the Tribunal for
Disciplinary Proceedings was material before the disciplinary authority
to take action. The Public Service Commission recommended to
take a lenient view but it is only recommendatory and the Government
was not bound to accept it. The Government accepted the finding of
the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings that preponderance of
probabilities did establish the charge. This finding having been based
upon the evidence of PW.1, it cannot be said that it is based on no
evidence. If all the relevant facts and circumstances and the evidence
on record are taken into consideration and it is found that the evidence
establishes misconduct against a public servant, the disciplinary
authority is perfectly empowered to take appropriate decision as to
the nature of the findings on the proof of guilt. Once there is a finding
as regards the proof of misconduct, what should be the penalty to
be imposed is for the disciplinary authority to consider. While taking
decision to impose the penalty of dismissal, if the disciplinary authority
had taken the totality of all the facts and circumstances it is for the
authority to take a decision keeping in view the discipline in the service.
The fact that there was no allegation of misconduct against the officer
during his earlier career does not mean that proved allegation is not
sufficient to impose the penalty of dismissal.
(415)
Lokayukta / Upa-Lokayukta
Lokayukta / Upa-Lokayukta has no jurisdiction over
APSRTC and Cooperative Societies.
Institution of A.P.Lokayukta/Upa-Lokayukta vs. T.Rama Subba
Reddy,