VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

830 DECISION - 433
petition, set aside the order of removal and upheld the order treating
the period of absence as dies non, by order dated 7-8-84. The
Government of Andhra Pradesh annulled the said order in exercise
of its powers under Article 371-D(5) of the Constitution of India, by
order dated 31-10-84. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed
the writ petition filed by the respondent and set aside the order dated
31-10-84 passed by the Government. The matter came up before
the Supreme Court by an appeal.
The only question for consideration is as to whether the
Tribunal was right in setting aside the order of removal passed on
23-9-77 solely on the ground that before passing the order, the
Government did not consult the State Vigilance Commission as clause
(2) of rule 4 of the A.P. Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings
Tribunal) Rules 1961 stipulated that the Government shall consult
the Vigilance Commission before deciding whether the case shall be
tried in a court of law or inquired into by the Tribunal or departmental
authority. The Supreme Court held that the word “shall” appearing in
clause (2) of rule 4 is not mandatory and consequently nonconsultation
with the Vigilance Commission would not render the order
of removal of the respondent illegal, on the analogy of the
interpretation of the word “shall” occurring in Article 320 (3) (c) of the
Constitution in respect of consultation with the Service Commission.
The Supreme Court upheld the order of removal of the respondent.
(433)
(A) Misconduct — good and sufficient reasons
Not appearing before Medical Board with a view to
avoid inquiry regarding true state of health is an act
of insubordination and disobedience of an order by
police officer and constitutes good and sufficient
reason for initiating disciplinary proceedings, though
there is no specific conduct rule in that regard.
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings — initiation of