VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 434
833
The petitioner, Manager in the Food Corporation of India at
Chandigarh, was dealt with in departmental action on a charge of dereliction
of duty in failure to submit the report of verification in respect of a contractor
truthfully, and removed from service. The order of removal was confirmed
by the Board. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine.
On the contention of the appellant that he was removed from
service by the Managing Director, whereas Zonal Manager was the
disciplinary authority, the Supreme Court pointed out that as it was a
joint inquiry the highest in the hierarchy of competent authority who
could take disciplinary action against the charged officers was the
Managing Director and that there is no prohibition in law that a higher
authority should not impose the penalty as the primary authority in
the matter of disciplinary action. In this case, a right of second appeal/
revision also was provided to the Board. There was no violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution.
On the contention that the petitioner should be given an
opportunity of splitting up the matter and that common proceedings
caused grave prejudice, the Supreme Court held that the provision
of an opportunity of splitting up the matter is only instruction issued
as guidelines. If one charged officer cites another charged officer as
a witness, the inquiry need not per se be split up and if that procedure
is adopted normally all the delinquents would be prone to seek split
up of proceedings. In disciplinary proceedings the concept of coaccused
does not arise and each of the delinquents would be entitled
to summon the other person and examine on his behalf as a defence
witness in the inquiry or summon to cross-examine any other
delinquent officer if he finds him to be hostile and have his version
placed on record for consideration by the disciplinary authority. Under
these circumstances, the need to split up the cases is obviously
redundant, time-consuming and dilatory. The Supreme Court held
that there is no illegality in the action taken.
On the contention that some of the delinquents were let off
with a minor penalty, the Supreme Court held that merely because